BS: Very sorry..

01 Jul 01 - 02:10 AM (#495759)
Subject: Very sorry..
From: Proudson

I really wanted to only open up the Clarence Thomas ACLU debate...

---

01 Jul 01 - 02:13 AM (#495760)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Proudson

Sorry liberal group..guess you like the terms like Uncle Tom used on Supreme court justices..

---

01 Jul 01 - 02:21 AM (#495764)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: catspaw49

Only when they apply......and it isn't needed to start a separate thread for every post. You now have two threads, three posts and nothing to discuss.

If you have a point, make the argument in it's favor and go from there. A simple one liner is just that......a one liner. it will get only casual and smartass replies like I just gave you. If you want to start a discussion.....do so. Write up your points and give us something to debate.

Free speech is not a problem here, but sillyass trolling one liners are.

Spaw

---

01 Jul 01 - 02:23 AM (#495766)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: wysiwyg

Oh yes, and welcome, but do, please, read the FAQ, top thread on the list. It'll all make sense after that.

~Susan

---

01 Jul 01 - 03:16 AM (#495771)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Proudson

Point taken...sorry..

---

01 Jul 01 - 03:23 AM (#495773)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Proudson

I assume the Clarence Thomas issue is not that big of deal to you all....I am sorry if I did anything to disrespect your thoughts or opionions...

---

01 Jul 01 - 04:18 AM (#495784)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Roger in Sheffield

Hello Proudson, could you explain for me (in the UK) what the Hell you are talking about?
If you outline what the Clarence Thomas issue is and your opinion on it then you may get more response - so far I don't know what you are trying to say and it could be interesting

---

01 Jul 01 - 04:26 AM (#495786)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull

Well said Roger, I was wondering as well.

---

01 Jul 01 - 04:34 AM (#495788)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Amergin

same here....

---

01 Jul 01 - 06:14 AM (#495806)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: rock chick

I agree, what are you on about, I like a good dicussion but need more info.

---

01 Jul 01 - 06:45 AM (#495811)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Roger in Sheffield

Looks like this is what its all about, this thread BS: another end run

---

01 Jul 01 - 06:49 AM (#495812)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Ralphie

I think we've scared him off....!! Maybe we'll never know Regards...Ralphie

---

01 Jul 01 - 02:27 PM (#495940)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Amergin

That's what he was carrying on about in two seperate threads? Proudson, next time raise that issue in the thread it was stated...that way folks will have more of an idea of what you're talking about.....though I still don't have much of a clue...

---

01 Jul 01 - 02:57 PM (#495952)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Gary T

I'm afraid I still don't know what issue concerns Clarence Thomas and the ACLU (which I didn't see mentioned in the thread linked above).

I also don't know what this is getting at: ...guess you like the terms like Uncle Tom used on Supreme court justices... It's phrased in a manipulative and sarcastic way, which I don't care for. And while being a supreme court justice may merit a certain degree of respect, it doesn't insulate one from being considered unfit or undesirable, or from getting labeled an "Uncle Tom" or similar terms that convey people's feelings about them.

So Proudson, you gonna say something, or just beat around the bush?

---

01 Jul 01 - 03:05 PM (#495960)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: wysiwyg

Proudson, if you are still with us, may I suggest that a way of getting to know people here is through discussions of the one huge area in life all of us here tend to have in common-- music. You can do that in as many music threads as you like-- come on in, if you have not done that yet. And then once people know each other, the policital discussions seem to make a lot more sense.

Let's give Proudson a chance like we would any other new member. I recall others who have needed some time to find out how to use a forum like this one.

Not every newcomer who wanders in knows the ropes of online discussion, never mind the way this particular forum operates in technical terms...

I keep thinking of my dear friend and bandmate who at the age of 72 is just getting online. Clueless, about the Net, but not about life... not a writer, but not a troll either. A musician.

And we had another member posting recently who fit that same description, and was given all kinds of grief for starting multiple threads on one topic. It turned out he just had not waded through the FAQ, because reading is not his main way of learning stuff.

If Proudson is really going to be a creator of problems, it will become obvious, and there's no call to be rude, assuming it.

~Susan

---

01 Jul 01 - 03:12 PM (#495967)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Gary T

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.

---

01 Jul 01 - 03:22 PM (#495972)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Kara

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=

---

01 Jul 01 - 03:25 PM (#495973)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: wysiwyg

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~

---

01 Jul 01 - 03:30 PM (#495975)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Kara

Click here

---

01 Jul 01 - 03:53 PM (#495987)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Roger in Sheffield

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

---

01 Jul 01 - 04:28 PM (#496011)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

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

---

01 Jul 01 - 04:45 PM (#496024)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Roger in Sheffield

Thanks Doug now I think I understand

Whats there to discuss, some people like him some hate him?

---

01 Jul 01 - 05:31 PM (#496065)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

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

---

01 Jul 01 - 05:38 PM (#496071)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

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

---

01 Jul 01 - 06:39 PM (#496099)
Subject: Justice Clarence Thomas & Anita Hill
From: McGrath of Harlow

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-

---

01 Jul 01 - 07:19 PM (#496132)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: catspaw49

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

---

01 Jul 01 - 07:33 PM (#496146)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: CarolC

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.

---

01 Jul 01 - 07:37 PM (#496148)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: CarolC

(Sorry. That's midnight and 4:00 AM, Mudcat time.)

---

01 Jul 01 - 07:43 PM (#496151)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: kendall

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."

---

01 Jul 01 - 09:05 PM (#496191)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

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

---

01 Jul 01 - 09:10 PM (#496196)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: catspaw49

Maybe so Doug........especially if it covered his head as well as his knees!

Spaw

---

01 Jul 01 - 09:31 PM (#496208)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Jim Dixon

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

---

01 Jul 01 - 09:52 PM (#496222)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Greg F.

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

---

01 Jul 01 - 11:32 PM (#496285)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

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

---

02 Jul 01 - 10:18 AM (#496549)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: GUEST,The Yank

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.

---

02 Jul 01 - 10:51 AM (#496569)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: McGrath of Harlow

How come GUEST,The Yank spells "arse" the good old non-American way?

---

02 Jul 01 - 11:11 AM (#496586)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: kendall

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.

---

02 Jul 01 - 01:44 PM (#496711)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: marty D

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

---

02 Jul 01 - 03:40 PM (#496805)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

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.

---

02 Jul 01 - 04:19 PM (#496840)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

---

02 Jul 01 - 07:38 PM (#497020)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Greg F.

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.
You weren't one of the "Impeach Earl Warren" boys by any chance, were you, Doug?

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.

Best, Greg

---

02 Jul 01 - 08:17 PM (#497054)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Bill D

Fallacy of Association , or 'transference', I'd think

---

02 Jul 01 - 08:18 PM (#497055)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

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

---

02 Jul 01 - 09:00 PM (#497079)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Greg F.

Doug, ya don't want to play, don't serve the ball, OK?

Thanks, Greg

---

03 Jul 01 - 01:47 AM (#497244)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

You're really funny, Greg.

Best, DougR

---

03 Jul 01 - 04:31 AM (#497288)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: JudeL

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

---

03 Jul 01 - 05:15 AM (#497308)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: CarolC

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.

---

03 Jul 01 - 09:41 AM (#497435)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: SDShad

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

---

03 Jul 01 - 09:59 AM (#497456)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: McGrath of Harlow

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,
And a good Judge too..."

---

03 Jul 01 - 09:59 AM (#497457)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: McGrath of Harlow

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,
And a good Judge too..."

---

03 Jul 01 - 10:12 AM (#497464)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Whistle Stop

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.

---

03 Jul 01 - 10:30 AM (#497482)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: catspaw49

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

---

03 Jul 01 - 10:49 AM (#497496)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Amos

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

---

03 Jul 01 - 11:13 AM (#497520)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

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

---

03 Jul 01 - 11:27 AM (#497531)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Big Mick

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

---

03 Jul 01 - 12:07 PM (#497562)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Jim the Bart

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.

---

03 Jul 01 - 01:06 PM (#497612)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

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

---

03 Jul 01 - 01:08 PM (#497614)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: kendall

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.

---

03 Jul 01 - 01:48 PM (#497642)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

---

03 Jul 01 - 05:59 PM (#497813)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: kendall

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.

---

03 Jul 01 - 07:55 PM (#497893)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

---

03 Jul 01 - 09:23 PM (#497926)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

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

---

03 Jul 01 - 09:51 PM (#497939)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Rick Fielding

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.

---

03 Jul 01 - 10:26 PM (#497960)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Amos

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

---

03 Jul 01 - 10:37 PM (#497970)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

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

---

03 Jul 01 - 11:22 PM (#497995)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: kendall

Doug, well done, well researched. However, I find that most of your post was about history. Now, why do I feel that he is not qualified? Here goes. He had no experience as a judge. If he has a law degree from Yale, why was he in the Dept. of whatever instead of making loads of money as a lawyer? Look, the man testified in the hearings that he had never discussed Roe v Wade with anyone! Talk about ludicrous. Now, the matter of Anita Hill. She stuffed what happened for a number of years, then, she told some blabber mouth who then spilled the beans. It was after that that she was subpoened to testify. She did not want to, but, she had no choice. I believed her, and, as far as his qualifications go, he meets the bare minimum to sit on the court. Beautiful. How much lower will the bar go?

---

04 Jul 01 - 12:23 AM (#498012)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

Kendall, my friend, I respect you. And I respect your right to believe whatever you please.

Doug

---

04 Jul 01 - 02:19 AM (#498043)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: SeanM

OK...

I've been ignoring this thread, but finally out of sheer boredom opened it tonight.

Speaking as a confirmed liberal, I have to say that I don't approve of SEVERAL of the Supreme Court's decisions, and do feel that there are any number of people who could do a better job, in my opinion.

However, it's still opinion. As Doug points out quite clearly, ANYONE is qualified to sit as a justice on the Court. Any further refinement is due to bickering between the various parties, and ANY judgement of 'quality' will very likely be quickly lost in the morass of partisan bickering.

Do I like him? No. Do I wish someone more acceptable to my personal beliefs were in his place? Yes. Does this matter one tiny bit in the grand scheme of things beyond thems that are willing to let me buttonhole them endlessly on politics?

No.

He's there. He's not done anything that would disqualify him from being a justice - as there really doesn't appear to be anything that would. All the arguing in the world won't change that.

Personally, I think that while the court has an identifiable 'conservative' bent, and the handling of the 'election' issue would be worth investigating (if there were a mechanism), overall the justices have shown their willingness to apply the Constitution to the cases brought before them.

So, rather than concentrate on the negatives, with 40 minutes to go before 'the 4th', I'll concentrate on a few positives.

Kudos to the court for striking down the use of thermal imaging of a house without a warrant, viewing it as a violation of 'unreasonable search'.

Kudos to the court for upholding the Federal drug policies over the state 'medicinal marijuana' laws, yet not striking them down - in essence telling the states that while they do not have primacy in this issue (i.e., state laws are still subordinate to directly related federal laws), that they just need to convince the Fed to change things. (In my opinion, this could have opened the door for psychos in the states creating any number of bad laws, and using this as a referendum for racial, gender or any other bias discrimination).

Anyone else have something POSITIVE?

M

---

04 Jul 01 - 07:43 AM (#498155)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: kendall

Opinion? this is a fact. When he stated that he had never discussed Row v Wade with ANYONE, it showed him to be either a liar or a doofus. That is not just opinion. I saw it and I heard it from his own mouth. Imagine a lawyer never discussing one of the most controversial rulings in American history! Maybe, like Dan Quayle, he thought Roe vs Wade was the decision Washington had to make when he crossed the Delaware...

---

04 Jul 01 - 01:19 PM (#498371)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

Why am I not surprised, Greg? Perhaps you could find for us, in a publication you accept as valid, the qualifications for serving on the Court, record for us what you find. Stating the qualifications, which was after all the "question" would not, I believe come under the category of "editorializing."

And, it's only a guess, but I think you meant "whining," not whingeing.

And Kendell, did it ever occur to you that Justice Thomas might have been telling the truth? Perhaps he never did discuss Roe V Wade with another attorney. He would still be a doofus, right? :>)

DougR

---

04 Jul 01 - 01:35 PM (#498393)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: McGrath of Harlow

(Etymological drift)Whinge is the portmanteau word made up of whining and cringing. The distinction I suppose is that whining is about a sound, and cringing is about a demeanour.

So you could cringe without whining, but I'm not at all sure you could whine without cringing. In which case, if someone is whining they would automaticaly have to be whinging...

---

04 Jul 01 - 01:53 PM (#498408)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

Thanks for that, McGrath. I'd never heard the word before. Is it a fairly recent addition to the language? So I shouldn't be insulted, right? :>)

Hmmm. Not in my dictionary. I wonder if I could find it in "The Supreme Court A to Z?"

DougR

---

04 Jul 01 - 03:32 PM (#498465)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

It's not complimentary? Oh shucks, what a surprise! :>)

DougR

---

04 Jul 01 - 04:49 PM (#498494)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: kendall

Doug, you will never make me believe that a working lawyer has never discussed Roe v Wade. It is absolutely incredible. No, I dont really believe he is a doofus, I think he is a liar.

---

04 Jul 01 - 06:56 PM (#498551)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: SeanM

Liar or not, he's still qualified to sit on the Bench.

I'm going to have to be a stickler on this one - he is as qualified as any other representative of 'justice' that could possibly have been sent up. As noted, an autistic quadriplegic blind and deaf three year old would be qualified.

Rather than yell back and forth without communicating that he's just "not qualified", which is patently false, how about stating what you'd view as a solution?

M

---

04 Jul 01 - 07:06 PM (#498559)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: McGrath of Harlow

Is he really any worse than the rest?

---

04 Jul 01 - 07:52 PM (#498579)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Lox

A point for consideration

Are these questions the same;

1. "Is he qualified"

2. "Does he meet the qualification criteria"

And by the same token, should we consider the possibility that some people are better qualified for certain jobs than others irrespective of the qualification criteria?

Or does a lack of stringent criteria make everybody equally qualified.

DougR, I don't care about Clarence Thomas one way or the other, but I feel I must step in here to point out that your earlier post wasn't as informative as you purported it to be.

All you have told us, in answer to the question, is that he studied Law at yale, and that is what makes him a qualified candidate.

I would have to conclude on this information, that he was nowhere near being the BEST QUALIFIED candidate.

I know enough about the law to know that experience makes you learned in its ways.

3/4 years of college gives you nothing more than a taste.

Sometimes common sense must be allowed to prevail over pedantic rule quoting.

Do you see my point?

lox

---

04 Jul 01 - 08:09 PM (#498591)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: SeanM

THAT is a question that (while more to the point) can never be answered to everyone's satisfaction.

Was Thomas the best qualified for the job? I'll hazard the answer will be "no". His qualifications to be appointed can't be refuted, as they are minimal requirements at best. However, if you want the best person for the job, you'd better be prepared for the kind of battle that happens every time that a nomination comes before the senate, and you'd also better be prepared to have a large number of people disagree with you.

Unfortunately, you can't arbitrarily state "So and so is the best candidate for the court. As their duty is to review laws and the like in reference to their constitutionality, and as the constitution is deliberately vague on a number of points, any decision is going to be based off of the Justice's opinions on what the Constitution means to that particular case.

Once again, though, it's somewhat pointless to argue the case. Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court Justice. Period. Best qualified or not. I don't like it, apparently quite a few others don't like it, but this is America, and the opinions of the masses means dick.

How about some talk on how to prevent this happening again (if you are against the appointment) or on future qualified applicants?

M

---

04 Jul 01 - 08:09 PM (#498592)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

Yes, lox, I do. I never, at any time, said Thomas was the most qualified based on experience, or anything else. That, however, was not the charge made by so many in this thread, the charge was that he WAS NOT qualified.

Robert Bork is recognized by many to have been among the most qualified ever nominated, but he wasn't confirmed. He was not confirmed for political reasons. It had nothing to do with his qualifications. He was guilty of viewing things from the conservative point of view.

Bush (Sr.) wanted, I'm sure, to appoint an African-American to replace Justice Marshall, who was also an African-American. He selecteed Thomas. Justice Thomas is also a conservative. I personally think that one reason so many people are critical of Thomas is that he is not SUPPOSED to be conservative. The overwhelming majority of African-Americans vote liberal, not conservative. Therefore, Thomas doesn't fit the mold.

DougR

As Sean points out, however, Thomas, under the rules, is qualified, as you, yourself are, lox.

---

04 Jul 01 - 08:20 PM (#498596)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Lox

Sean - I said "best qualified" not "best Candidate".

Now what kind of qualifications do you think you might need to be a big important judge making big legal decisions for a big powerful country.

Doug - good answer, but you know which question needs to be answered don't you. Any other is surely a waste of time energy and brain power.

I direct you to paragraph 2 of this post, and ask - is he "really" qualified yes or no.

I will not contend your response, but I will be interested to see how stubborn you are.

---

04 Jul 01 - 08:26 PM (#498600)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Lox

Doug & Sean

I put my last point unfairly

I had a mild fit of sarcasm

feel free to overlook that aspect of it if you can

lox

---

04 Jul 01 - 09:36 PM (#498622)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Greg F.

Well, Kendall and McGrath, at least Thomas isn't as nasty a piece of work as his fellow liar & buddy Rhenquist, who committed perjury before the Senate Judiciary Committee more than once during his confirmation hearings.

For example: He was confronted with a memo he had written as a law clerk for Justice Jackson which read "I think that we should argue in favor of Plessey vs. Ferguson- that's the 1898 "Separate but Equal" Supreme Court decision re: Black/White education & facilities, for our non-U.S. friends. Rhenquist lied under oath & told the committee that he was just transcribing something that Justice Jackson had said, but that was NOT Jackson's position, nor could Rhenquist produce any other "transcriptions". And Jackson was conveniently dead.

Now, had he lied about consensual sex, on the other hand...

Best, Greg

[P.S. for the benefit of Mr.R- read the hearing transcript]

---

04 Jul 01 - 10:07 PM (#498629)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: kendall

Seems like we have plowed this ground quite thoroughly, and, any more of this is pointless. The fact that Thomas is qualified to sit on the bench is more scary to me than the fact that he IS on the bench. Why does the Special Olympics come to mind?

---

04 Jul 01 - 10:09 PM (#498632)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: SeanM

Well, it would depend on your view of the qualifications.

Again - I don't like the man from what I've seen of him. I don't agree with several of his views, and from what I've read of his briefs from the decisions I've seen, I don't agree with his reasoning.

However - given the actual qualifications, he's as qualified as anyone else in the country.

Given intangible (and unofficial) qualifications such as views on politically charged topics, legal expertise, education and the like? Well, in my opinion, given these qualifications he's definitely NOT the most qualified. However, given the qualifications that he be dependable to push a conservative point of view in court decisions, he's made THAT one several times.

I think a LOT of what's going on in this thread is confusing the actual qualifications that DON'T change from appointment to appointment with the substantially slippery and ever changing qualifications based on who is nominating, who is in the senate, what political ideologies are being furthered by his/her appointment, etc. It can not be truthfully said that Clarence Thomas was unqualified for his position. However, I'll stand up and scream as loud as the rest that I don't feel that he meets my criteria as an ideal Justice.

M

---

05 Jul 01 - 12:51 AM (#498692)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

Kendall, I think you're right. Enough of this one.

DougR

---

05 Jul 01 - 06:54 AM (#498821)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: GUEST,The Yank

Showing the white feather, Dougie?

---

05 Jul 01 - 08:34 AM (#498843)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Whistle Stop

Well, I'm a good deal more liberal (politically) than Doug, and I would have preferred to see someone other than Thomas get that seat on the Court. But as far as I can tell Doug has provided a pretty solid rationale for accepting Thomas' qualifications to sit on the Court; at least, I found his arguments pretty compelling (all the more so when you recognize that he was subjected to some significant abuse along the way, but did not respond in kind). Whether we agree or not on any particular issue, I'm glad we have Doug on this forum, and I don't think he has to "show the white feather" to anyone.

---

05 Jul 01 - 09:15 AM (#498869)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: GUEST,UB Dan

Doug...well researched and explained response. Thanks. Although Kendall did make a good point, you only used past events and happenings in your argument, couldn't you add some information and examples from the future as well ;)

Sean M, I applaud you. You explain yourself well and made the very important distinction between your objective (Thomas is qualified) and your subjective (you don't like him) views. I think most people would agree with you on both counts. What bothers me is when people confuse these two views (I don't like Thomas so he is unqualified).

In regards to "the admitted liar, David Brock". I am not sure why people would accept everything that he says at face value now. NPR's report stated that no corrobortating evidence can be found. Basically, it is one man saying I was a liar...but believe me now when I say....

The question as to Thomas' previous conversations about Roe vs. Wade is like asking "Do you still beat your wife". It is a set up question ment to greatly impact the Congress' approval process. I think he avoided it well and unless someone here had actually discussed this subject with him, I think it is silly to say he must have. It doesn't mean he was unaware of it or had not thought about it...he might just not have discussed it. (I can hear the response already "awwww c'mon, he must have. I know he did cause thats what the pictures in my head tell me when I close my eyes")

---

05 Jul 01 - 10:03 AM (#498913)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: kendall

Sorry Mate, but, pure logic tells me that a lawyer who says he had never discussed Row v Wade with anyone is bogus. Some very good points have been made here, but, nothing has changed, I still dont like the man for the reasons I stated. UB Dan, this is the second time you have referred to something I said as "silly", and be advised that I dont appreciate it. It borders on an attack, so, if that's what you mean to do, then say so and we will have at it.

---

05 Jul 01 - 10:16 AM (#498921)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Whistle Stop

Kendall, you might want to rethink that. Every disagreement is not a personal attack, and opining that "I think it is silly to say (whatever)" doesn't seem out of bounds to me. Why do you feel the need to respond so aggressively?

---

05 Jul 01 - 11:50 AM (#498973)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: McGrath of Harlow

I'd think the man has more right to be on the Supreme Court than Bush has to be in the White House. And probably a similar level of competence to do the job.

I imagine he'd say that in this context "discuss" means something different from what it means in ordinary speech. For example, giving an official legal opinion. You know, the same kind of juggling with words thta Clinton tried with "sexual relations".

Isn't "liar" just a different way of spelling "lawyer" anyway?

---

05 Jul 01 - 11:56 AM (#498979)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: kendall

On second thought WS, you are right. He just pushed an old button, and he couldn't possibly know that. Challenge is withdrawn. There is an old eastern saying, "Your opinion of me is none of my business."

---

05 Jul 01 - 12:38 PM (#499020)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

Whew! I am mightly relieved! I had this vision of Kendall and UBDan standing back to back on a frosty morning in Maine, dueling pistols cocked and ready, about to start the count ...

This forum could ill afford to lose either of you.

DougR

---

05 Jul 01 - 01:03 PM (#499047)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: GUEST,UB Dan

Kendall, just logged back in. Sorry for the offense. I may have an opinion on a stated idea, but I have no opinion of you personally. We don't know each other well enough for that. Great men sometimes have bad ideas and bad men somnetimes have great ideas. I may "attack" an idea but I mean no offense to the person. (the upside is that now the thread name finally has some meaning)

---

05 Jul 01 - 01:05 PM (#499050)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: UB Ed

Me too, Doug. I had this vision of losing Danny Boy and being forced to find another Bodhrain player...(wait a second, why would I...)

---

05 Jul 01 - 02:51 PM (#499129)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Lox

Are we qualified to discuss this issue?

Should I qualify that remark?

And finally, to get to duel with kendall you'll have to get through the qualifying rounds of the MUDCAT DUELLING CHAMPIONSHIPS. These are of course to the death, but applications must be in before july the 5th or you can't enter (unless you challenge the judges to a duel, in which case ... erm ...)

(I think thats probably enough from me)

lox

---

05 Jul 01 - 02:58 PM (#499141)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: catspaw49

Ya' know, this is one of those threads that even when antagonists agree, we miss it. There's been some interesting discussion, but at times we miss each other's points (and places for mutual agreement) in the same way that politics takes over and dismisses abilities in favor of a political agenda in the appointment process.

In any case, I still wonder what the ACLU has to do with Clarence Thomas...................then again, I really don't care at this point either!

Spaw

---

05 Jul 01 - 03:50 PM (#499184)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: kendall

In the movie HONDO, John Wayne said to a young man, "Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness." What a crock! I have never felt the least bit less of a man when I apologized for some stupid remark I made. Thank you guys for injecting some humor, I really appreciate that.Being a humorist is no laughing matter sometimes.

---

05 Jul 01 - 03:50 PM (#499186)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

Me either, Spaw. Let's get drunk.

---

05 Jul 01 - 03:52 PM (#499188)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

Me either, Spaw. Let's get drunk (that is if you'll drink with a conservative!)

DougR

---

05 Jul 01 - 03:53 PM (#499191)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

Me either, Spaw. Let's get drunk (that is if you'll drink with a conservative!)

DougR

---

05 Jul 01 - 04:10 PM (#499203)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: catspaw49

Make mine Jack and Coke....and hold the Coke......

Spaw

---

05 Jul 01 - 06:06 PM (#499287)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

Okie dokie

---

05 Jul 01 - 07:38 PM (#499351)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: kendall

Doug, I have a problem. I'm half Irish and half Scot. Half of me wants to get drunk, but, the other half doesn't want to pay for it.

---

05 Jul 01 - 07:43 PM (#499356)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

Well, since I am constructed of the same stock myself, I suppose I should feel the say way. I just assumed either you are Spaw would buy.

DougR

---

05 Jul 01 - 07:57 PM (#499370)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: McGrath of Harlow

I'd have thought both halfs would like a jar, kendall...

---

05 Jul 01 - 10:04 PM (#499466)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: kendall

There is also some French in me, maybe I could apply for foriegn aid?

---

06 Jul 01 - 12:25 AM (#499540)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

Jeeze, Kendall, my grandmother was French! You don't think ...Scotch, Irish, French ...could we be related? If so, how could you have gone so wrong? (Sigh)

DougR

---

06 Jul 01 - 01:58 AM (#499557)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: Rick Fielding

Jeez, I'm gonna throw up! Can you guys start fighting again!

Rick

---

06 Jul 01 - 02:16 AM (#499558)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

Ok. Rick.

Kendall, I got an invitation to attend a reception for Justice Clarence Thomas at the State Department in Washington, D. C., on August 1, 2001. It seems someone in the White House took note of my postings on the Mudcat, and sensing that I thought the Justice was qualified, decided to send the invite.

I would be delighted to have you accompany me. Should I make reservations for two? I do want you to know that you are second choice because I asked kat and she is all tied up that evening, or something.

DougR

---

06 Jul 01 - 07:15 PM (#500224)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: kendall

Doug, I do believe you have a sense of humor after all!

---

06 Jul 01 - 07:17 PM (#500228)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: kendall

Actually, my ancestors only settled in France. They came from Scandinavia. Then, when the time was right, they invaded England with William the conquorer in 1066.

---

06 Jul 01 - 07:47 PM (#500248)
Subject: RE: BS: Very sorry..
From: DougR

Hmm. I wonder how our Brit friends will view you now? :>)

DougR

---