I think Supreme Discomfort is worth reading ,it is a good book. before one of friends on EbonyFriends.com told me about this book so I know a little about it.

Marcus Garvey was very dark skin black man and he said all mulattoes should be killed. He hated W.E.B. Dubois he called Garvey called Dubois a mulatto. Clarence Thomas is dark caramel skin (almost dark skin) and he hates light skin blacks. Thomas feels inferior to whites and wants their approval. He is jealous of light skin blacks because they carry white blood and genes. Rev Jesse Lee Peterson and Lashawn Barber also are jealous of light skin and they feel inferior to whites. Look at the skin color off all these people notice they neither are nor light skin. They are scared to attack whites because they fear punishment.

Prof Ifill

I'm sure this is a good read. But, notwithstanding his concurring and dissenting court opinions, Thomas's divided soul was already fighting against itself, in public, 16 years ago. Because it provided an illuminating spectacle for the world to see during his confirmation hearing when he himself played the race card ("high-tech lynching" of an "uppity negro"), for which he always expressed such contempt, to silence his critics and whitewash the affirmative action that led to his appointment on the supreme court.

However, unless Thomas poured out his soul to these writers, their purported insight into his intra-racial prejudices is psycho-analytical bullshit. After all, Thomas would argue that his opinions are informed by the prideful self-help philosophy of people like Booker T Washington, not conservative bloviators like Rush Limbaugh.

Moreover, Spike Lee's "School Daze" makes it clear that it's invariably light-skinned blacks who suffer all kinds of pathologies about their racial identity (including aping the delusions of racial superiority over dark-skinned blacks that whites assume over all of us).

I'm sorry you wasted your time reading about this lost shell of a man. There really is nothing positive I can say about him and I won't waste another minute thinking about him. He disgusts me.

Thank you, Professor. But, instead of posting a commentary about this foul, hateful man who has damaged the nation so much in his jurisprudence, I wish you would have posted about the work and contributions of Anita Hill and Lani Guinier.

I am going to have to read this book.

Sounds like the "Double Consciousness" spoken of by DuBois ...

He's one of my "black heroes"!

Sounds like the "Double Consciousness" spoken of by DuBois ...

Sherrilyn,

Thank you for the commentary. I thought it was very good.

I remember clearly the confirmation hearings. I wasn't a fan of Thomas, however I wasn't against him either. For some blacks going against Thomas would help the black cause. Personally, I didn't.

Clearly the Thomas hearings were a victory for the white woman. During that time the complaint was "all those white men in the Senate". It was funny to me that the Asian Senators were suddenly white.

A couple Senators Byrd and Kennedy were "ashamed", but not ashamed enough to step aside for a black or woman to fairly compete for their Senate seat.

Since that time you have a growing number of white women, Hispanics and at least two Asians every session in the Senate. One Negro.

I find him fascinating due to his flaws and his obvious conflict with his identity. What I'd really like to see is Thomas have a fellow black justice, preferably female and progressive. While not female, wouldn't it had s/thing to see the giant Leon Higginbotham on the Court with Thomas.

I find him fascinating due to his flaws and his obvious conflict with his identity. What I'd really like to see is Thomas have a fellow black justice, preferably female and progressive. While not female, wouldn't it had s/thing to see the giant Leon Higginbotham on the Court with Thomas.

Clarence Thomas (The sambo who sits amongst the whites): A sorry example of a Black man with a white supremist complex. May he continue to experience discomfort in his chosen ideology, environment, and circle of associates.

A better read: The Spook Who Sat by the Door – Sam Greenlee

Clarence Thomas is the epitome of what is called less than human trash. Words come out of the lower orifice of his body and his farting pretensions of protecting the Constipation of the United States seem to get lost coming out of that bald idiotic gigantic pimple on his shoulders. I can only come to the conclusion that he seems to be full of it and refuses to drink the laxative of life to rid him of the guilt he feels for being Black and personifying what he feels should be his whiteness. Clarence: go to the bathroom and relieve yourself soon because when you burst no one will be around with the toilet paper to wipe your mouth. Your declaration of incompetence is coming to the fore and you need some serious Geritol.

Thomas won’t hire blacks as law clerks if they taken “that Afro-American studies stuff” as undergraduates.

What do you expect from a self hating black man?

Thank you, Professor, for that insightful review. I also blogged on this book, arguing that we need to "Take Thomas Seriously," as a person and as a Justice. We don't need to agree with him--and I don't--on matters of law or philosophy or whatnot. But I do think we have an obligation to understand where he comes from, and what motivates his branch of thinking.

I think your post does "take Thomas seriously", and for that I commend you.

professor ifill's post brings up an important (if not obvious) issue: blacks and their rampant crab-in-a-barrel-ism. notably, thomas' biggest detractors are black. consider, too, barack obama, who faces more opposition from blacks who think he doesn't "act black enough" than from whites (who are either too enchanted by or confused with him to know any better). although black "intellectuals" (read: liberals) tend to be the main purveyors of this black self-hatred, as the black anti-clarence and the black anti-obama movements demonstrate, black self-hatred isn't directed only at black conservatives, as many people tend to think. black self-hatred is a pervasive thing that hurts blacks from every part of the political spectrum. a byproduct of all this is that whites, previously too scared to attack thomas because, well, he's black, have become emboldened by blacks' violent (and irrational) hatred of the guy, with the result that whites now attack clarence for very frivolous reasons (i.e., these whites attack him just for the sake of attacking him). "if blacks think he's an uncle tom, then i'm going to think the same thing. if blacks can attack clarence for retarded reasons, then i can too. and i will." for a very clear example of this, examine the following:

"Consider Tim Russert’s 2004 interview of Harry Reid of Nevada, then the Senate minority leader. Reid feared that George W. Bush might name Thomas to replace William Rehnquist, who had just died, as chief justice. Reid granted that Thomas was “one smart guy” but said that he couldn’t support him for chief justice because “he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I don’t—I just don’t think that he’s done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.”

Many people of good faith disagree with Thomas’s opinions. But they can’t plausibly accuse him of poor writing. In a 2001 speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Thomas said: “Whenever possible, the Court and judges generally should adopt clear, bright-line rules that, as I like to say to my law clerks, you can explain to the gas station attendant as easily as to a law professor.” Thomas has passed this demanding test of lucidity pretty successfully. “It’s a shame Russert didn’t press Reid to name some Thomas opinions he considers to be poorly written,” the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto commented. “In the absence of such examples, one can’t help but suspect that the new Senate Democratic leader is simply stereotyping Thomas as unintelligent because he is black."

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_clarence_thomas.html

it's disgusting to hear all the "clarence is an uncle tom 'shell of a man' who hates light-skinned blacks and is afeard of the white man" comments on this site. yes, disgusting. but that's the way a substantial number of blacks truly feel about their successful brothers. and it apparently doesn't matter whether those successful blacks are "uncle toms," democrats, republicans, or anything else.

when charles barkley was asked about the whole "you're not black enough thing," here's what he said:

"Well, that's because black people are f*cked up. One of the reasons that black people are not going to be successful is because of other black people. We tell black kids that if they make good grades, they are acting white. If they speak well, we tell them that they are acting white. We have a lot of demons in our own closet--in our own family--that we have to address. But first of all, we want black men to be intelligent and articulate and things like that. That's not acting white. That's the way it should be. ... We become our own worst enemy with random black-on-black crime, teen pregnancy, single-parent homes. You know we cannot blaming white America for our ills. Does racism exist? Of course it does. But, at some point, I have to make sure I am educated. I don't have ten kids and no job. I am not killing other black people. At some point, you have to grow up."

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=mXVcyBJOJ29DDJB1k%2BHYry%3D%3D

barkley doesn't hold back. and he's right: blacks are f*cked up.

it's hard not to notice the stupidity of most if not all of the anti-thomas attacks on this thread: "he's scared of whites and seeks their approval," "he hates light-skinned blacks," "he has a white supremist [sic] complex." i guess the good news here is that, judging by their absurdly childish comments, the blacks attacking thomas just aren't that smart to begin with, so their opinions really don't matter in the grand scheme of things. i think thomas, obama, and all the other victims of black self-hatred should take solace in that fact.

Chauncey,

Firstly, your comparison of the black opposition Thomas to Obama lacks substance. The "Obama not black" issue was overblown by the MSM, and most african americans are simply adopting a wait and see attitude with regards to his candidacy.

You are disingenuous to attribute opposition to Thomas to the "crabs in a barrel" mentality. Surely you know something of his salient anti-black positions and history? Unfortunately, the label "uncle tom" fits quite well with Thomas.

His legal brilliance notwithstanding, I don't know why we have to hold back our disgust at this man. Maybe you feel that being a supreme court justice is such a noble profession, he is beyond reproach.

Chauncey: For you to claim that Blacks' hatred of Thomas is "irrational", indicates that you are either a Black idiot or a White apologist for rightwing consrvatism. Their nothing irrational about the Black community disapproving of one of its' own doing everything possible to destroy the progress of Black people and other minorities in America. It is no more irrational than the Jews in Vichy France who stalked and killed the Jewish collaborators of the Nazi regime in WWII. Were they irrational in their hatred of fellow Jews? I will state for the record that yes I do HATE Clarence Thomas. He is a sell out. He is NOT intelligent. He has no business on the Supreme Court regrdless of his political views and I find it amazing that any lawyer, if he is intellectually honest, can state with a straight face that he is not an embarassment to The Court and to the legacy of George Bush I. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for even defending him.

keto,

that's where you're mistaken. i'm not saying that clarence is beyond reproach. i'm not saying that blacks should always agree with him. all i'm saying is that it's incredibly stupid to attack the guy simply because he has conservative views. i'm saying it's incredibly stupid to attribute his conservatism to some sort of mysterious, hidden "anti-blackness" within him. clearly, not all conservatives hate blacks, and it's even less likely that black conservatives hate blacks. your childlike stupidity prevents you from recognizing this really, really obvious fact. yes, fact.

and i'm going to have to call you out on this one. you said clarence has held "salient anti-black positions." let's see if you know what you're talking about. please identify these positions and explain how they're "saliently anti-black." i can guarantee you right now that you're going to look foolish, just like harry reid did when he said clarence is a poor writer. think carefully because unlike you i actually know what i'm talking about.

the stupid assumption underlying your dumb views is that blacks in important governmental positions who don't think and act like al sharpton are "uncle toms." this stupid assumption dictates how you live your life, yet you're too ignorant (or too dumb) to realize it.

you're disgusting.

cmoney,

stop being foolish. (ok, i know that's possible, but indulge me.) i'm not defending thomas' politics. i'm not defending his opinions. but you're a damned, damned, damned fool if you think he's not intelligent. that, or you haven't read his any of his opinions. consider Warner v. Hilton, an influential patent case, or his early and recent 14th amendment opinions. (query whether you even know what i'm talking about.)

clarence thomas is much more than a black guy on the supreme court. he opines on much more than race. the problem with dimwits like you is that your pea-brain can't appreciate that. and anyone who prefaces a critique of a supreme court justice by noting that: "I HATE HIM. HE IS EVIL!!!") is certainly no less irrational than than the crazy jews you mentioned in your post.

First things last:

you're disgusting

Boo--f***ing--Hoo.

the stupid assumption underlying your dumb views is that blacks in important governmental positions who don't think and act like al sharpton are "uncle toms." this stupid assumption dictates how you live your life, yet you're too ignorant (or too dumb) to realize it.

I'm beginning to think you are white. In any case, I never expressed this opinion.

and i'm going to have to call you out on this one. you said clarence has held "salient anti-black positions." let's see if you know what you're talking about. please identify these positions and explain how they're "saliently anti-black." i can guarantee you right now that you're going to look foolish, just like harry reid did when he said clarence is a poor writer. think carefully because unlike you i actually know what i'm talking about.

OK. First, let's define an 'anti-black' position. I regard this as either a) a position that the overwhelmingly majority of blacks would be against, and/or b) a position that would do indirect or direct harm to black folks.

Also, I am not a lawyer, but I will give your question my layman's take:

Using the above definition, Thomas' position and aim to dismantle affirmative action qualifies. It's even more striking since he has benefited from affirmative action all the way up to his current position.

In addition, his views and opinions on the death penalty, in a nation when so many blacks are disproportionatly and unjustly given this sentence, are anti-black.

I also consider his various supports of unreasonable and intrusive police/law enforcement behavior to be anti-black, given the prevalence of racial profiling and harrassment by the police.

all i'm saying is that it's incredibly stupid to attack the guy simply because he has conservative views. i'm saying it's incredibly stupid to attribute his conservatism to some sort of mysterious, hidden "anti-blackness" within him. clearly, not all conservatives hate blacks, and it's even less likely that black conservatives hate blacks. your childlike stupidity prevents you from recognizing this really, really obvious fact. yes, fact.

When you stop hiding Thomas behind this cloak of 'conservatism', and actually examine his stated views, and published opinions--and do it from the perspective of the black proletariat--you will understand why so many revile him.

Chauncey: Yes I hate Clarence Thomas. At least I am honest. For you to claim he is intelligent, well, I don't think you're that dumb to really believe that, I just think you're intellectually dishonest. Those "crazy Jews" that killed the Vichy collaborators were people of integrity, freedom fighters. People who actually stood for their OWN KIND, even if it meant their own deaths. Something Clarence Thomas would never understand. I've wasted enough of my time thinking about this fool. Out.

keto,

what, is that supposed to be a response? you didn't quote any of his opinions or cite anything he has said publicly. is that supposed to "qualify" as an "examination" of his "stated views"? please. please stop wasting my damned my time. reading your post killed about 20 seconds of my life i'll never get back. thanks for that.

look. i understand you aren't a lawyer. but that doesn't mean you can mindlessly parrot other people's mindless criticisms without explaining why they make sense. indeed, since you're a non-lawyer (actually, it'd be more accurate to say that you have absolutely no idea what thomas' opinions mean or say), maybe you should shut your mouth about legal stuff.

let's take a look at a couple of your comments:

"OK. First, let's define an 'anti-black' position. I regard this as either a) a position that the overwhelmingly majority of blacks would be against, and/or b) a position that would do indirect or direct harm to black folks."

i'll give $20 to anyone who can identify the logical fallacy inherent in a). b), a dumb, blanket statement, doesn't provide any guidance whatsoever as to what "direct," "indirect" or "harm" mean. therefore it's pretty useless and meaningless.

is there anyone here capable of delivering a better-reasoned, more rigorous argument than "he doesn't agree with affirmative action; therefore, he's an uncle tom," or "he supports the death penalty, and since blacks are put to death a lot in the US, he's anti-black"? if anyone is up to the task, let me know. idiots need not apply, thanks.

does anyone else find it interesting that cmoney keeps calling clarence "unintelligent" without any support or analysis or argument whatsoever? telling, no?

Chauncey:
does anyone else find it interesting that cmoney keeps calling clarence "unintelligent" without any support or analysis or argument whatsoever? telling, no?

I would have to say that cmoney is calling a spade a spade, pun intended. 2nd pun: he's a modern day Uncle Tom. And the list goes on.
And if you can remember, he was accused of sexual herrassment on the job by a black woman. Even though he's married to a eight hundred pound white gorilla!(I want to laugh but I wont).

He confuse, and suffuers from low self esteem. He's ignorent of our history and worst of all: He's one of my "black heroes"! Dragon Horse. Need I say more. LOL!
Maybe that's what cmoney ment by a lack of intell; the writing is on the wall.

It wouldn't even suprise if he wasn't a undercover brotha... No I'm not against Gays. I'm just making a point.

Tar, Feathers, and don't for get the matches.

OP

I am not qualified to dig out the nuance in supreme court rulings. What I follow are 1) what was at stake 2) what was the court's decision 3) who voted how, and sometimes 4) why they voted in such a way.

When it comes to legal matters, only one thing concerns me: the practical affect a ruling will have on me and on black folks in general. Everything else (to me) is window dressing.

If you disagree then it's on you to provide evidence for these issues that have been widely reported on and openly archived.

On affirmative action, the practical results of Mr. Thomas' views, if they were followed, is the ranks of degreed african americans would be reduced. We have seen precedents of this from Connerly's meddling. This in turn would have a whiplash effect on the ranks of professionals in the future, and on the class status of blacks and their ability to build economic wealth and political power. To me, this constitutes harm to black people, and until someone can convincingly demonstrate how abolishing AA would practically help black people, I consider anti-affirmative action positions to be anti-black.

On the death penalty, the practical results of Mr. Thomas' views, if followed, would be a more liberal application of the death penalty. Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, but his votes have consistently been to allow the expansion of the class of persons that could be given the death penalty and to give latitude to courts in dismissing mitigating evidence. All legal mumbo-jumbo aside, I interpret these opinions as facilitating the institutional biases that lead blacks to be disproportionately given the death penalty, and the facilitating the processes that cause so many innocent black men to be given the death penalty. Net result, more blacks, innocent or not, will be executed in our racially biased system. I count this as harm to black folks.

Lastly, as a black man that has been harassed by the police quite often, and have heard similar stories from my black, law abiding colleagues, Thomas' views and opinions on the fourth amendment are alarming at best to a black man. One gets the impression that the man simply does not take many drives out of his robes. Whenever I see or hear of a case that has to do with unreasonable, random, and intrusive searches, Mr. Thomas votes in favor of law enforcement. Net result, cops will be given more reign to stop, harass, and unjustly arrest me and my black fellows. Again, to me, an anti-black ruling.

I don't think I am unreasonable in expecting a black man to act in his own self interest on some of these rulings.
Though I believe that the reason Thomas was appointed was to serve as a bizarro-representative of black people on the high court. This in my view was 41's cynical response to pressure to have a suitable replacement for Marshall.

keto,

you said: When it comes to legal matters, only one thing concerns me: the practical affect a ruling will have on me and on black folks in general. Everything else (to me) is window dressing. If you disagree then it's on you to provide evidence for these issues that have been widely reported on and openly archived.

interestingly, you didn't provide any real-life evidence of the practical affect [sic] of any of thomas' opinions, but that's ok. you don't know what you're talking about so you get a pass. anyway, here goes:

you: On affirmative action, the practical results of Mr. Thomas' views, if they were followed, is the ranks of degreed african americans would be reduced.

this is so false i almost died. after connerly "meddled" with the university of california's affirmative action policies (i.e., after he heroically got rid of them), black graduation rates at UC schools actually increased, as did the number of blacks placing at the top of their classes. pretty interesting, huh? you didn't know that, right? you don't believe me, correct? of course not. so this is where i provide actual "evidence" of what i'm saying:

Only in 1998 did the university’s admissions processes operate without either explicit racial preferences or stealthy surrogates for race. The results were telling: at Berkeley, the median SAT gap shrunk nearly in half, to 120 points; black and Hispanic admits logged an impressive 1,280 on their combined SATs. The six-year graduation rates of this class would increase 6.5 percent for blacks and 4.9 percent for Hispanics, compared with the class admitted two years earlier.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_1_prop209.html

blind, willful ignorance tends to make us miss little facts like these. but that's ok, because like i said above, you get a pass.

further, richard sander, a law professor at UCLA, as shown that affirmative action actually decreases the proportion of blacks who graduate from law school, pass the bar and thus become lawyers. the same thing applies to undergraduate school. pretty interesting, huh?

don't believe me? check it out: http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic/final/SanderFINAL.pdf

what does all of this mean? well, in addition to the fact that you're completely wrong, it means that thomas' views on affirmative action do not hurt blacks at all. in fact, his views help blacks more than any liberal black or liberal white could ever imagine.

you know what else it means? it means that you're anti-black. this is because you support a policy that has a detrimental effect on blacks. does this statement make any sense? of course not, but it's the sort of dumb logic you used to demonize clarence thomas. remember that.

on the death penalty: i'm not going to get into a debate on whether we should allow the death penalty. suffice it to say that if blacks didn't commit as many death-penalty-worthy crimes, then they wouldn't get lethally injected so often. the key isn't to get rid of the death penalty; the key is to prevent blacks from committing murder and other violent crime. if the death penalty acts as a deterrent in this regard, then it's a good thing. thus thomas' views on the death penalty, at least as you've described them, benefit, and do not negatively impact, blacks. that's that.

the same idea applies to thomas' pro-law enforcement view of the 4th amendment. the best example of this is crime in new york city during the early 90s. during that period, the city was ravaged by a crime epidemic of epic proportions, mostly involving black-on-black crime, until giuliani and his police chief, informed by george kelling's broken windows theory, told cops to get more aggressive. investigative stops increased and violent crime decreased significantly. the black community benefited greatly because of the reduced black-on-black crime. pretty neat, huh? now, this doesn't mean that clarence's 4th amendment opinions were responsible for NYC's crime decline, but it does mean that clarence's views here aren't hurtful to blacks. at all.

anyway, that's about it. you really have to open your eyes. stop reflexively attributing thomas' views to some sort of anti-blackness within him. such anti-blackness clearly doesn't exist. indeed, he's about the most pro-black justice on the court.

"I don’t think it’s likely to change anyone’s mind about Thomas."

My sentiments exactly. I read some of this yesterday. Like most of us, he's quite complex and makes little sense. But I still found it hard to stomach.

Chauncey:

Respect. You are wasting your time, but I'm sure you know that already. It has been an entertaining read as you get to the essence of the black liberal mind, which is reactionary ignorance and denial. Most of these people are cheer leaders, they know next to nothing about Thomas but what some black leftist wanna be blacka-than-black told them, as you have revealed.

I agree with you Clarence Thomas is not anti-black and the Supreme Court should not be basing decisions on what is in the best interest of black liberals, but what is constitutional and what is the intent of that document as it applies to current laws/rulings.

If Clarence Thomas ever said he decided a decision based on the fact "it is good for black folks" I would want him removed immediately, and I'm black 24/7 all 30 years of my life, but some things are not about black folks. He would not be a man of principle and doing his job if he kowtowed to racialist pressure groups and name calling.

In fact I would say Clarence Thomas is more of a man than the majority of black "males" on this site for standing for what he believe in despite all the ignorance he has to deal with from his own people. That is the mark of someone of strong character. A lesser man would get on his knees and kiss the feat of leftist radicals even knowing in his heart something ain't right.

I don't always agree with Clarence's rulings, and I read some from time to time but I also don't condemn him for having a different opinion.

Blacks are not and never have been monolith in this country and we have to understand that pluralism is good and necessary for our community and our evolution as a people in this country.

This reactionary ignorance hinders our intellectual growth as a people, like to the level of elementary school children on a playground. There is no excuse for that in 2007...Spike Lee told us to "wake up" in School Daze, some kneegrows still ain't grown passed a man's knee in their intellect and are sleep walking on the regular.

Chauncey, Let's make a deal. You stay out of statistics and math related subjects, and I'll stay out of the law. Your math capability reflects someone who was admitted to school using preferences.

I've got to run to a show, so I'll give you a quik debunk of one of your stats (pulled from a reactionary paper). Here is your fact about affirmative action:

The black graduation rate increased afterward by 6.5%.

OK. But what I'm interested in are absolute graduation rates, not some vague percentage of a rate.

What does that rate really mean? Well, the 6-year graduation rates for Berkeley was 58%; for lack of a better number, let's use this for the entire UC system. So, let's say, that the post-209 graduation rate was ~62%, as the 6.5% increase implies.

Now, what number actually was admitted? I haven't been able to find that number at such short notice, but I have found that the black admission rate decreased by 18% the first year of 209.

So as a thought exercise, let's use a mock number of admittees, say 100 students, as a round number. Pre-209, there was a graduation rate of 58 percent, so:

58 graduates pre-209;

Post-209, there was a 18% drop in admissions, so that 100 number would have become 82. But as you say, the graduation rate would have increased by 6.5%. But that only leaves:

50 graduates post-209.

Notice something? The absolute number of graduates has actually decreased.

But perhaps you have the actual absolute numbers, which would be interesting to see.

Clarifications: I'm interested in absolute graduation numbers, not rates.

And chauncey pulled his true stat (I'll assume) from a reactionary paper that shrouded the real issues (IMO).

Is that DH trying to recruit another ignorant white (Chauncey) to support his idiotic anti-Black, self-hating views?

Poor silly negro. He has reduced himself to recruiting from the lowest of the white trash. This Chauncey character knows that Clarence Thomas is another self-hating sambo like DH, and idiot Chauncey now wants to promote him as a model Black man who is supportive of Black advancement.

Where does the lackey idiocy stop?

DH,

very well said. i agree with everything in your post.

keto,

oh please. my stats are consistent with my claims. anyway, i doubt the absolute number of graduates declined significantly. pre-209, the problem was that black kids were "mismatched" for the schools that accepted them; the number of admits may have been high, but black graduation rates were miserably low. post-209, blacks enrollees and their UC schools were better matched, and, predictably, graduation rates increased. i doubt this "cascade" effect actually decreased the absolute number of black graduates. in any event, you made the claim, not i, so it's up to you to convince me that you're right. that's how arguments work.

oh, and facts are facts. you can't get around those facts by calling their source "reactionary." ad hominem arguments are tools of the devil (and stupid people).

keto,

just think about it. enrollments across the board haven't really declined (maybe a 1% decline), but graduation rates have increased substantially. basic logic should tell you that this should yield a net increase in the absolute number of black grads.

What I find interesting is that everyone is posting statistics but forgetting that the "spin-masters" are at work. Chauncey posted info from the City Journal, which is referred to as "the nation’s premier urban-policy magazine, 'the Bible of the new urbanism,' but if one looks at the articles, one will find conservative viewpoints.

I looked up anti-affirmative action info and found the following statistics:

- "When the ban on affirmative action was implemented at the University of California (UC)-Berkeley law school, the number of black students admitted dropped from 75 in 1996 to 14 (out of 792 applicants) in 1997; none enrolled."

-"In its first year without affirmative action, the UC-San Diego School of Medicine did not admit a single black applicant, of the 196 who applied."

So who's right????

Cracka:

It stops when you get your own site and stop complaining like a 12 year old girl who the Prof allow to post on this one. Oh yeah and stop using school yard insults and hiding behind fake militant behavior and deal with the issue like a man and stop cheer leading from behind someone else. I might think Keto and Cmoney are wrong but they are more of a man than you will ever be.

Veronica and Keto:

You are not getting to the root of the issue, and it is not the quota system that is causing this or the lack of, it is blacks being competitive.

What you posted is true, what you didn't post is that in the UC system the black rate of college interest actually has increased since the end of affirmative action based on racial quotas overall, just not at the top schools. Basically the black students were not competitive to get in the top universities so they went to lower ranking ones, but still went to a university. Also the drop out rate decreased (because they were not put in a situation where they were over their head).

Also having conservative view points does not automatically make one wrong or a liar. That is a logical fallacy.

"Ten years later, a lot has changed. The numbers of black and other underrepresented minorities at the University of California have rebounded at the undergraduate level, although they haven't kept pace with high school graduation growth for those groups. At the same time, there's been a redistribution within the system, with more blacks and Hispanics going to lesser-known branches of the 10-campus system and fewer to the flagships of Berkeley and UCLA, a trend that troubles some."

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_5829263

Without further analysis you can not determine that because it has not kept pace with high school graduation rates something is wrong. I am pretty sure the problem is many of the students are not even competitive enough to get into a low level school so they go to community colleges or technical schools.

That means the problem is not the university but with the high schools and the student body.

You can have the best school in the world, with the best teachers, and the most funding (actually most predominately black school districts in America have more funding than rural white schools that perform better on standardized testing).

"As far as kids in urban schools…I would agree but there is a trend here. The trend is simple. It doesn’t matter the income level or the how much the school spends on the kids, on average black kids typically do worse GPA wise than black students. There have been many studies on this and the results are always the same. Less parental involvement at home, less serious attitude toward education, not doing home work, not studying, not reading, etc. It does not matter if it is urban or in the suburbs. The urban kids just do worse, but no kids are doing better. This was broke down by several studies in McWhorter’s book “Loosing the Race”. I actually looked into a few of the studies he sited…he did not mis-state the findings.
In States were people spend far less, like Utah, or where kid are quite poor on average (West Virginia) white kids still outscore black kids.

www.nea.org/newsreleases/2003/nr030521.html
nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp

"One of the most disturbing, I think perhaps the most disturbing fact in our whole book is that black students coming from families earning over 70,000 are doing worse on their SATS, on average--it's always on average--than white students from families in the lowest income group. You want to cry hearing that figure. I mean, it's so terrible."

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/ interviews/thernstrom.html

No school funding is not the issue...what we value is the issue, the morality in our homes is the issue.

Here is what I said in the other thread concerning blacks and school spending:

"As far as kids in urban schools…I would agree but there is a trend here. The trend is simple. It doesn’t matter the income level or the how much the school spends on the kids, on average black kids typically do worse GPA wise than black students. There have been many studies on this and the results are always the same. Less parental involvement at home, less serious attitude toward education, not doing home work, not studying, not reading, etc. It does not matter if it is urban or in the suburbs. The urban kids just do worse, but no kids are doing better. This was broke down by several studies in McWhorter’s book “Loosing the Race”. I actually looked into a few of the studies he sited…he did not mis-state the findings.
In States were people spend far less, like Utah, or where kid are quite poor on average (West Virginia) white kids still outscore black kids.

www.nea.org/newsreleases/2003/nr030521.html
nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/states/profile.asp

"One of the most disturbing, I think perhaps the most disturbing fact in our whole book is that black students coming from families earning over 70,000 are doing worse on their SATS, on average--it's always on average--than white students from families in the lowest income group. You want to cry hearing that figure. I mean, it's so terrible."

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/ interviews/thernstrom.html

No school funding is not the issue...what we value is the issue, the morality in our homes is the issue.

Instead of trying to pull black students up who underperform into top schools push them up from the bottom by making them more competitive. Affirmative action is not just about quotas.

Thomas is intelligent enough to see that.

cmoney:

". It is no more irrational than the Jews in Vichy France who stalked and killed the Jewish collaborators of the Nazi regime in WWII. Were they irrational in their hatred of fellow Jews?"

Dude if Thomas was cooperating with Klan during Jim Crow to lynch black folks or send them to concentration camps I would say we should lynch him...no I'm not joking, I mean string him up. That is genocide and that is no joke.

In my opinion the Jews in France and Germany who hunted collaborators and Nazi war criminals were justified.

With Thomas it is not all of that. This man has never, to my knowledge done anything personally wrong to any black people or said anything even negative about a black person due to their race. He has also not worked with any anti-black racist groups. You might consider some Republicans to be racist or anti-black but that is your opinion unless you have proof Thomas is in a conspiracy with them to do specific harm to black people.

Sorry, all Jews don't agree with Israel today. I don't see Jews threatening to murder them.

Is Israel sending the Moosad to kill them? Nope.

www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

In fact I know quite a few liberal Jews were very much against what Israel did in Lebanon last summer. Jews are very diverse you have right wing Jews, Zionist, antizionists, communist (Trotsky was a Jew and Lenin was 1/4 Jewish), atheist who believe Judaism is just an ethnicity (a good portion of the Jews in Israel are not religious at all)...Orthodox, reform, Hasidic...if you want to see some folks hate on each other, get all these Jews in one room and start discussing politics and religion and watch the name calling and screaming start. I used to date a Jewish chick in high school, her family was reform and trust me I have seen Jews go at each other.

Instead of trying to pull black students up who underperform into top schools push them up from the bottom by making them more competitive. Affirmative action is not just about quotas.

Thomas is intelligent enough to see that.

Please expound on the logical and moral premises by which Thomas, himself the serial beneficiary of affirmative action, has functioned as a serial opponent of affirmative action for other Black folks?

Has the enormity of his own inadequacy to occupy that position on the Supreme Court given him special insight into the weaknesses or deficiencies of affirmative action? If so, why hasn't he resigned the position in favor of a more obviously and objectively qualified jurist?

Personally, I have concerns about the ways in which many institutions have implemented affirmative action policies, specifically as it relates to the selection of egregiously unqualified folks to occupy positions they are poorly prepared to discharge, I'm talking mainly here about hires rather than school admits..., Of course, there is relevant recent history - all too often overlooked by the anti-affirmative action crowd - which warrants consideration when contemplating the question of affirmative action.

''When Affirmative Action Was White,'' which seeks to provide a broader historical justification for continuing affirmative action programs. Katznelson's principal focus is on the monumental social programs of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal in the 1930's and 1940's. He contends that those programs not only discriminated against blacks, but actually contributed to widening the gap between white and black Americans -- judged in terms of educational achievement, quality of jobs and housing, and attainment of higher income. Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policy makers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960's.

This history has been told before, but Katznelson offers a penetrating new analysis, supported by vivid examples and statistics. He examines closely how the federal government discriminated against black citizens as it created and administered the sweeping social programs that provided the vital framework for a vibrant and secure American middle class. Considered revolutionary at the time, the new legislation included the Social Security system, unemployment compensation, the minimum wage, protection of the right of workers to join labor unions and the G.I. Bill of Rights.

Even though blacks benefited to a degree from many of these programs, Katznelson shows how and why they received far less assistance than whites did. He documents the political process by which powerful Southern Congressional barons shaped the programs in discriminatory ways -- as their price for supporting them. (A black newspaper editorial criticized Roosevelt for excluding from the minimum wage law the black women who worked long hours for $4.50 a week at the resort the president frequented in Warm Springs, Ga.)

In fact I would say Clarence Thomas is more of a man than the majority of black "males" on this site for standing for what he believe in despite all the ignorance he has to deal with from his own people. That is the mark of someone of strong character. A lesser man would get on his knees and kiss the feat of leftist radicals even knowing in his heart something ain't right.

What precisely is it that he knows isn't right? The fact that he occupies that seat on the SCOTUS? The fact that his beliefs are inconsistent in terms of what he has accepted for himself, but which he adamantly opposes for others? That really is, after all, the crux of the matter.

I don't always agree with Clarence's rulings, and I read some from time to time but I also don't condemn him for having a different opinion.

He is scorned because of his egregious inconsistency, not a desirable characteristic in a jurist...,

Blacks are not and never have been monolith in this country and we have to understand that pluralism is good and necessary for our community and our evolution as a people in this country.

I've yet to read an argument here in opposition to pluralism. OTOH, logical and moral inconsistency are roundly rejected as they should be.

This reactionary ignorance hinders our intellectual growth as a people, like to the level of elementary school children on a playground. There is no excuse for that in 2007...Spike Lee told us to "wake up" in School Daze, some kneegrows still ain't grown passed a man's knee in their intellect and are sleep walking on the regular.

Your attempts to appropriate other folks coinages and usages are falling flat, what there's really no excuse for in 2007, or at any time for that matter, is parroting the arguments of liars and ahistorical propagandists who pray on the ignorance of their audience.., what's truly childish is being tricked into repeating nonsense and showing time and time again an unwillingness (or is it inability?) to surmount error.

cnulan:

I see your concern, and I am personally not against affirmative action, never have been. I see it as critical.

That being said quotas are not the only type of affirmative action. I believe we need more programs geared to make black people competitive where they are currently hurting. The primary and secondary school level.

In some cities, as you know, we have 50% of black students dropping out (DC is one of them), now I'm not sure how many go on to get GEDs but I would prefer they stay in school.

For my money more improvement would be accomplished by pushing black kids up then pulling a handful into college, many of who drop out due to financial problems and also because they don't have the work ethnic or study habits. Or worse yet because they are not bright enough to be there, but they are bright enough to be at a university, maybe just not Berkley.

That's my position, the emphasis needs to be put where it makes the most sense to do the most good and also move black people to a place where they don't need to be dependent on such programs and can compete with the best. Right now we are not there and not getting there.

As far as Thomas, the Supreme Court is not about who is the more intelligent, intellectual, etc. There are many law professors and judges in this country who are far superior to Thomas and anyone on the supreme court (liberal or conservative) who will never be on the court, because the court is a political appointment. It is not a meritocracy. The determination of who the president nominates and who the Senate approves is heavily bias, always has been.

So I do not believe he needs to resign because he received affirmative action in the past.

Also you are quite right to point out that white women have received more benefit from affirmative action and in the past whites received benefit just for being white.

However in modern times, white women usually are overrepresented at most universities, although in some programs (like hard sciences and engineering) they are not, but then again there is self selection bias, I don't see this as a problem. The key is equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Many women are not interested in hard sciences and I have no problem with that.

In the end, we can't change what has passed, we can always go back to when times were not fair...for every group in America, but the upper-class WASP...pretty much everyone else has been a victim of discrimination at some time in some way, varying in degree.

We should not forget the past, but learn from it and move on from here. What can we do for the future to ensure that everyone has an equal playing field and we don't have such discrimination and racialism as we have had in the past. We are not learning from history if we keep repeating it by justifying current behavior based on past inequity.

That is somewhat like saying...your grandfather killed my grandfather so my family was poor because my grandmother had 10 kids to feed and this effect all of us, even the grandchildren, which likely is true. So now I come to your home and do what I like when I like to make up for it...

I don't think that is a rational way to approach this.

The goal should be making current generations of blacks competitive so they don't need affirmative action. If blacks still are not being hired despite equal education and ability then the institution can rightfully be sued for discrimination (as we do keep racial/ethnic stats) as required by law, at least for larger organizations.

Cnulan:

My only concern with Thomas is that he is doing his job based on his belief. His beliefs in strict interpretation of the constitution which he does not believe is an elastic document is consistant in all his rulings, if they relate to race or not. I might not agree with his reasoning, but his job is not about "doing what some folks think is best for blacks".

If he deviated from his framework on "black issues" but then went back to using it on nonblack related issues I would say he should be removed.

The issue it seems for most people on here is that Thomas is against affirmative action, not really how he views the constitution, the two things can not be seperated because his job is to interpret the constitutionality of rulings and desputes between states or states and the federal government. As I said he is always consistant so it is not just a "black issue" or an issue of him "trying to hurt blacks", etc.

So if this specific issue is THE ISSUE for black people on this site. What does Thomas say?

Clarence Thomas tells black lawyers, he'll still oppose affirmative action - National Report

Declaring his independence from other prominent Blacks, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently told the National Bar Association that he intends to continue to oppose affirmative action and hold fast to other conservative views.

"I make no apologies ... nor do I intend to do so in the future," Thomas told the audience of more than 1,000 Black lawyers and judges at the National Bar Association's recent convention in Memphis.

For years denounced by minority-rights groups, Thomas decided to attend the convention even after some members sought to rescind his invitation and keep him away.

"I come here today not in anger or to anger ... not to defend my views but to assert my right to think for myself," Thomas said. He told his critics to stop telling him, "I have no right to think the way I do because I am Black."

He noted, "I reserve the right not to have my views assigned to me as if I was an intellectual slave."

Referring to affirmative action, Thomas said, "Any effort, policy or program that (in some way accepts the notion) that Blacks are inferior is a non-starter with me."

Though he speaks on college campuses and elsewhere, Thomas often confines his comments to inspirational, up-from-the-bootstraps messages. Never before has he tried to take on his critics so fully.

He said he is deeply hurt when portrayed as an enemy of his race. "It pains me deeply, more deeply than any of you can imagine, to be perceived by so many members of my race as being a harm," he stated. "All the sacrifice, all the long hours studying, were to help, not to hurt."

He noted, "Isn't it time to move on ... to realize that being angry with me is no solution? Isn't it time that we respect ourselves and each other as we have demanded respect from others?" the justice asked.

Much of Thomas' 35-minute speech touched on such frequently visited themes as his grandfather's wisdom, the racism he experienced as a seminary student and his fling as a Black revolutionary in the late 1960s. He took no questions during his appearance at the convention.

Thomas was booed at times and also given polite applause during his speech. Some even gave him a standing ovation. A threatened walkout did not materialize. Some of those in the audience later explained they were applauding Thomas' courage.

While never raising his voice, Thomas ridiculed as "psycho-silliness" criticism that his conservative views spring from racial self-hatred or a denunciation of his roots.

"Despite some of the nonsense that has been said about me by those who should know better ... I am a man. A Black man. An American."

Prominent Retired U.S. Appeals Court Judge A. Leon Higginbotham Jr., who was instrumental in the move to keep Thomas from appearing at the recent convention, said he once had hoped that Thomas would eventually change his views.

"Sadly, I can no longer harbor such hopes, and I sincerely believe that those who continue to pray that Justice Thomas will change are casting their hopes on a man who will not reward their faith in him."

Higginbotham wrote in a letter in May that Thomas "has done more to turn back the clock of racial progress than has perhaps any other African-American public official in the history of this country."

After Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Bernette Johnson invited Thomas to speak, Higginbotham criticized her for having given Thomas "an imprimatur that he has never had from any responsible organization within the African-American community or any non-conservative groups of Whites."

Justice Johnson said she was never under the impression that Thomas' appearance would change his conservative views.

"But hope springs eternal, and dialogue and interaction are always good," she said. "This gives Justice Thomas an opportunity to interact with us. Progress is made in small increments," she stated.

Randy Jones, president of the National Bar Association, said after Thomas' speech, "You have to respect him for coming into this group and sticking by his guns." Jones described Thomas' speech as "a semblance of an olive branch."

Jones added, "He spoke from the heart. He's a man who's not afraid to come into the lion's den and face his detractors and critics. I think we all have to respect him for that."

COPYRIGHT 1998 Johnson Publishing Co.

Y'all men sure can argue, let me tell you. We could have gotten a lot more discussion of Clarence Thomas' jurisprudence in Supreme Discomfort. While the book was strong and subtle in its biographical work, it was weak in its analysis of Justice Thomas' jurisprudence. Here's Kenji Yoshino's review of the books analytical shortcomings:

For a biography of a jurist, Supreme Discomfort is surprisingly short on Thomas's legal decisions and philosophy. For instance, Merida and Fletcher repeatedly mention that Thomas benefited from affirmative action during his rise only to oppose it when in power. But Thomas explained that seeming inconsistency in a 2003 dissent criticizing governmental affirmative action. In Grutter v. Bollinger, he argued that affirmative action stigmatizes all blacks, who are either promoted above their abilities or subjected to the unfair suspicion that they would not be where they are absent a racial preference. Regardless of the category into which Thomas would put himself, this response suggests how even beneficiaries of affirmative action can oppose it without hypocrisy. Merida and Fletcher also fail to grapple adequately with the justice's jurisprudential methodology. Thomas is the court's most ferocious originalist, believing that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly according to the intent of its framers. But what does it mean for Thomas to interpret the Constitution according to the intent of those who would have considered him to be chattel?

As usual, the discussion in this thread has collasped off topic and denigrated into bickering. Aren't we better than such bickering in the blackprof.com online discussion community? Just an advanced middle-aged black woman's view.

Also you are quite right to point out that white women have received more benefit from affirmative action and in the past whites received benefit just for being white.

Though not open to factual dispute, I didn't write any such thing and the materials I linked to didn't state any such thing either.

try to stay on topic.

This isn't even a discussion about affirmative action, rather, it is a discussion of a book which posits a jarring duality in the psyche and resulting juridical behaviour (I hesitate to call it jurisprudence) of Clarence Thomas.

Now, either you have something dispositive to say about the man and his obvious inconsistencies or you're just engaging in your typical antics.

Try to learn from your own recent history and do better

cnulan:

My view on Clarence Thomas is pretty clear, i don't always agree with him but he is quite consistant in his rulings and how he interprets the constitution. He is a strict constructionist.

All his rulings show this. If they rae black related or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

As far as his personality. He has not publically said anything I object to. I wish he would talk more about the effect of racism, but that ommission does not mean what he says is wrong or incorrect.

As far as his beliefs about light skin blacks, black upperclass when he was growing up and discrimination he got from whites and light skin upperclass blacks, I believe it.

My grandfather was a lowerclass light skinned black man from Lousiana and used to call my father names for being "a darkie" among other things..."big lipped" etc. Needless to say my father and maternal grandfather did not get along at all.

So yes I have seen this, and I think if my grandfather was above working class it would have been much worse as he used to sit on his porch and when he saw black people acting a fool in the street he would say "typical n!gger behavior". He would also refer to himself as creole or colored and said he was not "black" and didn't know anything about Africa, so was not African AMerican. LOL

SO yes these attitudes existed and I'm sure that Thomas got it twice. Once for being black in the South during Jim Crow, another for being dark skinned and poor by other "black" people (really mulatto upperclass blacks who were using the brown paper bag and ruler test).

Nowhere I have read have I seen him disparage all black people, just stuck up light skin blacks (as he saw them). He also has stated over and over again he believes black people can compete on a level playing field and are equal to whites.

Is he color struck because of his upbrining? Probably, but many black people are, especially the older generation, nothing new. Does this make him hate black people? I doubt it, he might have bias against light skin wealthy blacks...but the entire race? Never seen an evidence of that.

does this effect his court rulings? It does not appear to as few of his cases have to do with black people or affirmative action and he always rules in a conservative strict constructionist fashion.

Okay that is about it, got to go, in-laws flew in and I have to be tour guide. :-( They have already started with the..."why don't we have any grandchildren yet..." :-( X2

does this effect his court rulings? It does not appear to as few of his cases have to do with black people or affirmative action and he always rules in a conservative strict constructionist fashion.

Appropriating Steptoe now, I see.., oh well, whatever's clever in the moment. If you're going to appropriate portions of the lady's comment, go for the meat rather than the sprig of parsley set out to decorate the plate.

In Grutter v. Bollinger, he argued that affirmative action stigmatizes all blacks, who are either promoted above their abilities or subjected to the unfair suspicion that they would not be where they are absent a racial preference. Regardless of the category into which Thomas would put himself, this response suggests how even beneficiaries of affirmative action can oppose it without hypocrisy.

What this suggests is that Thomas is more preoccupied with others' perceptions of his merit than with the material facts of how a fat white thumb on the scales of meritocratic opportunity denied Black folks a level playing field right up to the present moment. (a la Katznelson)

This is not the way back machine..., no need to refer to history generations gone. When I was born in 1963, I did not have full citizen status in the United States. It wasn't until I was 5 years old that my parents could legally have access to living in any neighborhood they could afford to live in, etc..., etc..., etc...,

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about others perceptions of my merits. However, the apartheid material question as expressed in law and continuing social custom is a whole nother matter. Thomas is indisputably a hypocrite and a victim of skewed, inconsistent, and ahistorical deductivism gone wild.

As my elder by a fair stretch, how precisely do you suppose Thomas is able to overlook the policies and praxis (living history) he has personally experienced in order to dredge up some wild and arbitrary suppositions about what the framers had in mind?

Unable to objectively ascertain the contents of his own mind, (beyond his obsequious and neutered obsession with what white folks think) I'm supposed to pretend that he has some mystical sense of what the great white fathers thought - abstracted from the indisputable fact that they thought my africoid ancestors were subhuman chattel?

Uncle Ruckus keeps his moral center of gravity more real than Uncle Thomas do...,

Was at a dinner party last night and got a heads up on a new book coming out which traces the changes in the legal system since Jim Crow and how statistically the laws and application of the law has been engineered to have the same effect as Jim Crow.

Hope to get an advance copy- and asked the author to make contact with Chris or Shevar to potentially guest blog some of the material.

Think it may be very relevant to cashering the specious arguments of our everready anti-AA bumpkins.

BT:

In case the book info doesn't make it to BlackProf, any Book Title, Author, or ETA /info avilable?

Thanks.

Cnulan:

"Uncle Ruckus keeps his moral center of gravity more real than Uncle Thomas do...,"

You know that is wrong. LOL

Not yet - But once I get permission from the Author I will release it.

DH:
Off topic, but is there a reason you spell "American" with the "M" capitalized, or is that just a consistent typo?

This book could have just as easily been titled “Supreme Hypocrite.” Clarence Thomas, who vehemently opposes racial preferences, would not be a Supreme Court Justice if he were not Afrikan American. Clearly, he was not the most qualified jurist in the nation at the time of his appointment.

In fact, Afrikan American jurists such as Constance Baker Motley and Leon Higginbotham were eminently more qualified than Thomas. Thomas however was the beneficiary of political patronage, which is obviously a form of preferential treatment.

This man has a “childish resentment of light-skinned blacks,” but he claims to be “colorblind” and he marries a white woman. Apparently his “colorblindness” does not apply to the various hues within the Afrikan American community, and one wonders how he would have reacted to any children which could have resulted from his miscegenation.

Alvin Wyman Walker, Ph.D., P.D., P.C., offers some deep psychological insights into this bundle of contradictions “The Conundrum of Clarence Thomas: An Attempt at a Psychodynamic Understanding,” (http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/clarencethomas.htm):

“…Clarence Thomas' father deserted the family when he was a toddler. The mother's remarriage and her new husband's rejection of her offspring led to the rupture of the family and the dispersal of the children. He was then sent off to live with his grandparents in Savannah, Georgia. I suspect that this crucial traumatic event had a profound emotional and psychological impact on the subsequent development of Clarence Thomas.

When a young child is separated from the primary caretaker, the maternal figure in this case, an abandonment neurosis is one of the most typical outcomes. The symptomatology of such a neurosis is three pronged: The anguish created by what is experienced as an abandonment and the anguish triggered by every subsequent abandonment or rejection; devaluation and unconscious hostility toward the rejecting maternal figure; and lastly, self devaluation and vulnerability to recurrent depressions.

In rejecting his family of origin, Clarence Thomas also had to devalue himself and his black ethnicity and to strive mightily to deracinate himself, in a word, to strive to become as white as possible.

After completing high school at the minor seminary, he attended the Immaculate Conception Seminary in Missouri from 1967 to 1968. It was during his stay at Immaculate Conception that he went through an extremely intense ‘self-hate stage’ where you ‘hate yourself for being part of a group that's gotten the hell kicked out of them.’ He attempted to blend in by consciously trying to eradicate and bleach out his black ethnicity, by attempting to not act black and by studiously avoiding the use of black slang. His relative success in the attempt to deracinate himself is attested to by his current wife's aunt, Opal: ‘I can guarantee you I was surprised when I found out . . . [Virginia] was going out with a black man.

. . . But he was so nice, we forgot he was black and he treated her so well, all of his other qualities made up for his being black.’ Similarly, his father-in-law commented: ‘If you have any feelings about black color, you forget about it as soon as you start talking to him.’

At Holy Cross, Clarence Thomas married a black woman, Kate Ambush, and fathered his only child, a son named Jamal. It should come as no surprise that this marriage eventually ended in a divorce which was finalized in 1984. That his marriage to a black woman would end in divorce seems to have been over determined given his devaluation of his family of origin, his unconscious
hostility toward black women, and his marked ambivalence toward his own ethnicity.

By the time Clarence Thomas graduated from Yale Law School in 1974, he had begun to show signs of what appeared to be political conservatism. He spurned offers to practice public interest or civil rights law. As he put it, ‘I went to law school to be a lawyer, not a social worker.’

It was at this point that Clarence Thomas hooked up with an important white, conservative mentor, John Danforth, who was Attorney General of Missouri. As an Assistant Attorney General on Danforth's staff, Clarence Thomas embroiled himself with black staff members by hanging a large, Confederate flag in his office. The message here was that he was not like those other blacks for his deepest identification lay elsewhere: He is identified with the aggressor…

We see that the way Clarence Thomas dealt with his early experience of extreme deprivation and the trauma of rejection and separation from his primary caretaker was to devalue both himself and his family of origin, to attempt to deracinate himself, to disavow as much of his blackness as possible, and to search out new figures, usually white ones, with whom he identified and assiduously sought to please… It was in this fashion that Clarence Thomas came to shroud his black skin with a white mask.”

It comes as no surprise to me that Thomas “won’t hire blacks as law clerks if they (have) taken “that Afro-American studies stuff” as undergraduates. When asked earlier this year about his current staff of law clerks Thomas responded, “mine happen to be all white males." What else would we expect from a master of deracination?

Makheru

"In rejecting his family of origin, Clarence Thomas also had to devalue himself and his black ethnicity and to strive mightily to deracinate himself, in a word, to strive to become as white as possible."

DH:Thomas never rejected his grandparents. If this is the case then probably 1/4 or more of black people in this country would be self-hating as they have no father figure in the home and many don't know who they are, and many are raised by grandparents because they don't even have a responsible mother. So do they strive to be as "white" as possible?

I would argue many of them repeat the dysfunctional cycle of their parents, but others want to be "better" than their parents and learn from their misfortune and seek to "move up" and away from ignorance.

". . . But he was so nice, we forgot he was black and he treated her so well, all of his other qualities made up for his being black.’ Similarly, his father-in-law commented: ‘If you have any feelings about black color, you forget about it as soon as you start talking to him.’"

DH:So let me get this straight. Because he didn't act ghetto and rude he was "acting white"? Because he was polite and acted chivalrist to his wife he was acting white?

I guess he should have met his in-laws and said "What up pop...Virginia be on her way, I put her on da bus because a n1gga ain't have time to pick up da ho, ya heard??? I was wit my boys and all..."

Yeah that would be a superior accretion of his "blackness" in front of whites. LOL

"That his marriage to a black woman would end in divorce seems to have been over determined given his devaluation of his family of origin, his unconscious
hostility toward black women, and his marked ambivalence toward his own ethnicity."

DH: First off he married a black woman, if he really hated or was hostile toward them he could have married another race of woman or not married. The fact he is divorced from a black woman does not mean he is hostile to them. That would mean that 50% of Americans are hostile toward their spouse because of race, or any black man who is divorced from a black woman (which is higher than 50% of all married black men) divorced their wives because they didn't like black women.

"By the time Clarence Thomas graduated from Yale Law School in 1974, he had begun to show signs of what appeared to be political conservatism. He spurned offers to practice public interest or civil rights law. As he put it, ‘I went to law school to be a lawyer, not a social worker.’"

The majority of black lawyers in the country don't practice "civil rights law", nor do they have to.

forget law, what about black physicist like Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, are they self hating because they didn't go into a field where they could fight against racism or help poor blacks? LOL Talk about a leap of logic.

"Clarence Thomas embroiled himself with black staff members by hanging a large, Confederate flag in his office. The message here was that he was not like those other blacks for his deepest identification lay elsewhere: He is identified with the aggressor…"

Could be, or maybe because he was conservative in his political beliefs he was ostracized by the leftist radical black lawyers in the office, and it pissed him off they were so judgemental and intolerant so he wanted to send them a message (as in a symbolic middle finger) what would be more telling is if he did not associate with or constantly had issue with black people in personal relationships outside the office. I have seen no evidence of that as he often speaks before black audiences and does associate with famous blacks.

"When asked earlier this year about his current staff of law clerks Thomas responded, “mine happen to be all white males." What else would we expect from a master of deracination?"

DH:There is more to it than that. He was making a point. He hired people based on their competitiveness not on their race. It is not secret that on average black students are not superior academically to whites. So then you find how many applied to work for Clarence Thomas (which I'm sure many exceptional black law students would not do because they are also brainwashed leftists, unfortunately) that greatly reduces the chance that he would be able to hire a black person based purely on academic record and other activities related to law (clubs, published papers, etc). It is a matter of probability.

Mak:

I will also add that the Supreme Court is not and never has been a meritocracy. THomas did not and likely is not the formost legal scholar in the country. The Supreme Court is a political appointment made by the President. There are likely law professors, lawyers, and judges who are far superior to every single justice on the court in ability but will never be considered for the court due to politics. That is how the system was designed. If you think Bader Ginsburg is more qualified or more intelligent than Thomas based on background you have got to be kidding yourself, but I don't see you questioning her.

Justice Thomas has been on the court since October 1991. In that time he has be involved in most of all these cases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_from_the_Rehnquist_Court_through_the_Roberts_Court

So he has been active sense Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992)?

How many cases in that time have anything to do with race? How many decisions has anyone on this site who is condemning the same and judgement him stupid read?

Since I'm not race obsessed I've actually read some rulings on other issues, and many opinions written by Thomas. The man is consistant in his interpretation of the constitution and quite articulate and rational in his beliefs, if you agree with them or not.

Does the abreviations "DH" stand for dishonest? I swear Ras, your last two responses must have been written while you were drunk.

Lawyer. Indoctrinated at Yale Law.

Nothing Thomas says has the slightest validity.

I admire his silence during oral arguments. Hard for a lawyer.

Prof. Ifill's intemperate language, "revolting," for attending a wedding, is not lawyerly.

tafaraji:

I do not respond to childish personal attacks, only to the topic at hand which you have not commented on.

Specifically Ras, this interpretation was reaching wasn't academic at all:

Makera's article stated:". . . But he was so nice, we forgot he was black and he treated her so well, all of his other qualities made up for his being black.’ Similarly, his father-in-law commented: ‘If you have any feelings about black color, you forget about it as soon as you start talking to him.’"

Then you go off on a stereotypical rampage and come up with this:
DH:So let me get this straight. Because he didn't act ghetto and rude he was "acting white"? Because he was polite and acted chivalrist to his wife he was acting white?

I guess he should have met his in-laws and said "What up pop...Virginia be on her way, I put her on da bus because a n1gga ain't have time to pick up da ho, ya heard??? I was wit my boys and all..."

Yeah that would be a superior accretion of his "blackness" in front of whites. LOL"

It seemed as if you were taunting and childish, preferring to come through the cracks of a less formidable premise.

Unlike your relinguishing response to Mr. Nulan's post "Now you know you wrong"

Dragon Horse, you’ve avoided my fundamental premise and the fundamental premise of Dr. Walker. Otherwise, you’re entitled to your extrapolations and your speculations. Those extrapolations and speculations however, neither proves nor disproves absolutely anything regarding the specific psychodynamics of Clarence Thomas and/or the ethos of Afrikan Americans.

Regarding the “Supreme Hypocrisy” of Clarence Thomas Black Agenda Report notes: The book, Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas, points out that the High Court's most right-wing member constantly whines about being "victimized" - mainly by other Blacks - all the while denouncing African Americans for wallowing in "victimhood."

George Curry (http://georgecurry.com/columns/index1.shtml?id=1177987436) quotes our Esteemed Ancestor, the Honorable Leon Higginbotham: “I have often pondered how is it that Justice Thomas, an African-American, could be so insensitive to the plight of the powerless. Why is he no different, or probably worse, than many of the most conservative Supreme Court justices of the century? I can only think of one Supreme Court justice during the century who was worse than Justice Clarence Thomas: James McReynolds, a white supremacist who referred to blacks as ‘niggers.’”

Anyone insensitive to the plight of his own sister could easily be “insensitive to the plight of the powerless.” Dr. Walker says Clarence Thomas is a person “who savages his sister before a conference of black conservatives for being dependent on welfare (‘She gets mad when the mailman is late with her welfare check, that's how dependent she is. . . .’) but fails to mention to the audience that his sister's relatively brief period of unemployment was due to having to care for an invalid great-aunt.”

[He's one of my "black heroes"!]—Dragon Horse

That I can thoroughly understand.

Makheru

Anyway Ras, forgive all my typos, my grammatical and punctuation errors. I hope you're able to see what I was getting at. Makheru's, and CNulan's post were similarly critical.

As for the discussion, I was once personally offended by Clarence Thomas because I smiled a respectful acknowledgement after seeing him up close on the lawns of the Capital. It was a look of piercing disapproval that my eyes met, stopping me dead in my tracks if I'd even consider any further acknowledgement. I'm not sure at that time if I would had or not; it's more likely I would have kept moving on, as I tend to do. I just remember him seeming unapologetically cold and dismissing. Maybe I deserved it, who knows?

I just think he's hateful!

Lay off the black crabs in a barrel bull. White people criticize white people all day everyday but no one says nothing, but blacks are supposed to automatically support anything just because a black person is involved?! Give me a break. That's nonsense. Blacks are a diverse group of people. When you finally realize that, then you'll have a better understanding of society as a whole.

C-SPAN2 BookTV has back to back shows on Uncle Thomas and this book starting at 3:50pm EST today.

The Supreme Court Opinions of Clarence Thomas

Followed immediately thereafter by Supreme Discomfort..,

ETS,

your post is idiotic. NOBODY here is saying blacks should "automatically" or blindly agree with whatever Thomas says or does. i repeat: NOBODY. what an amazingly stupid strawman.

Mak:

"Those extrapolations and speculations however, neither proves nor disproves absolutely anything regarding the specific psychodynamics of Clarence Thomas and/or the ethos of Afrikan Americans"

Respectfully...that is the point. Anyone can speculate and show a bias opinion based on biased speculation, if you have a Ph.D. in psych or not. In fact I can find two shrinks to say totally opposite things at a murder trial. That tells you that is not a hard science.

To physist are not going to calculate something mathmatically using the same formula and come out with two different solutions unless some error in math was made.

Being insensative to black people or not does not make him a bad supreme court justice. You don't get it.

He could hate black people straight up and down. As long as his decisions are based on law and he is not showing bias against black people specifically personal feelings have nothing to do with it.

As I said Thomas is a strict constructionist and most of the cases he has ruled on have nothing to do with race and he always rules using the same legal theory when interpreting constitutionality. He is not more harsh when dealing with affirmative action or going out of character or against his typical ideology. He is consistant.

Taf:

My point was that because his in-laws liked him and forgot he was "black" is not a negative to him. His inlaws to me sound racist and expected a stereotypical "n1gger" as they "imagined him to be" when he came off as intelligent, respectful, etc they were like..."wow, when I was talking to him it was like when I talk to white people, I even forgot he was black".

That speaks to their ignorance, not to him.

"forgive all my typos, my grammatical and punctuation errors."

Since when do I care about that? No one makes more mistakes than me...whatever.

I can't speak to your personal experience with Thomas. Maybe he is a jerk. I don't know..to me that is not the point. I think 50 cent is a jerk too, but people don't call him a sellout, sambo, etc.

Clarence Thomas may be a great human being, but he remains someone who has positioned himself to protect the preferences of white people, because they accept his black skin, but know deep down inside he really is just like them...a white United States Supreme Court Justice. Thomas has become the black Justice with an entrapped white man inside his soul. Thomas does not at all resemble the distinguished presence of deceased Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom he replaced. Thomas is controversial because of decisions he has made to support and benefit whites and perpetuate racism. In Thomas' world, white people are the "American" people, and the decisions rendered do protect the rights of white people and their dominance as the majoritiy population in this country. Say what you will, but Thomas is the example of what many black men want to be and that is the only black man in a white man's domain, engaged in important white men's activities, and being catered to by white women.

As I said Thomas is a strict constructionist and most of the cases he has ruled on have nothing to do with race and he always rules using the same legal theory when interpreting constitutionality. He is not more harsh when dealing with affirmative action or going out of character or against his typical ideology. He is consistant.

Prove that he's consistent. Prove that he can discern original intent. Provide three examples demonstrating that his methodological approach to sussing out the original intent of framers is rigorous, factually correct, and in no way open to interpretation.

If you can't give that proof, (and you can't) on what basis are you making these preposterous assertions?

In fact I can find two shrinks to say totally opposite things at a murder trial. That tells you that is not a hard science.

doesn't that describe what is going on when there is a majority opinion and a dissenting opinion on the supreme court?

Being insensative to black people or not does not make him a bad supreme court justice. You don't get it.

He could hate black people straight up and down. As long as his decisions are based on law and he is not showing bias against black people specifically personal feelings have nothing to do with it.

His decisions are NOT predicated on legal precedent, unlike Scalia and other conservative jurists. Rather, his decisions are based on profoundly speculative inferences concerning the intentions of slavers from 200 years ago. Seems to me that Uncle Thomas feelings and imagination are primary when it comes to weaving contemporary interpretations of the law from the fabric of original intent.

Here's some grist for the mill, uncle Thomas on the 2nd amendment;

The Constitution, in addition to delegating certain enumerated powers to Congress, places whole areas outside the reach of Congress' regulatory authority. The First Amendment, for example, is fittingly celebrated for preventing Congress from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion or "abridging the freedom of speech." The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority....This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. Clarence Thomas Source: 1997, Concurrence, Printz v. United States

Help us all to understand what the framers had in mind when they contrived the second amendment, and please show how Thomas commentary is consistent with the original construction....,

cnulan,

His decisions are NOT predicated on legal precedent, unlike Scalia and other conservative jurists. Rather, his decisions are based on profoundly speculative inferences concerning the intentions of slavers from 200 years ago.

this is just dumb. dumb as hell. do you even know what you're talking about? what kind of idiot says "thomas's decisions aren't based on legal precedent"? what, then, does he base his opinions on? how stupid could you possibly be?

Cnulan:

Okay lets go through the case Printz vs U.S. since that is what you brought up. Fair enough.

Thomas was part of the majority, ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act's interim provision commanding the "chief law enforcement officer" was unconstitutional.

The lower federal court also said this law was unconstitutional but the specific provision could be stricken from the rest of the law, leaving in a voluntary background check.

The Supreme Court majority (opinion written by Scalia said) that there is no section of the constitution that deals with such issue, so it goes down to the precedence of practice (tradition of how things have been done).

Basically it comes down to the fact Scalia believed legislatures can not demand that judges to carry out this type of legislature.

he went further to say that this is the case because the Federal Government has power over the people, not over a state and the federal government should not have the power to make the state do its will, unless directly stated in the constitution, because this increasing the power of the federal government beyond what the founding fathers intended.

The contradicts the separation of powers (between state and federal), and the unitary executive theory...which they stated several founding fathers (including Hamilton and Wilson) showing they want a firm separation between branches of government and a strong executive, hence the president or head of state should have the power to enforce laws, not the courts being made to by the executive.

They go on to cite New York v. United States, wherein the Court ruled a Federal bill compelling States to enact legislation to provide for radioactive waste disposal was unconstitutional because it violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

So basically background checks became optional but the fast majority of jurisdictions did it voluntarily (FBI database) but the important thing is they were not compelled to do it by the federal government.

SO LETS GO BACK TO THOMAS NOW:

The first sentence agree completely with Scalia's "majority opinion".

"The Constitution, in addition to delegating certain enumerated powers to Congress, places whole areas outside the reach of Congress' regulatory authority."

This can be seen as a strict constructionist argument, next he goes

I actually agree with this ruling because I constantly argue for a shrinking of federal power and more power to the local community. This increases the power of democracy at the local level and makes it more direct, which I support. Then again I'm a libertarian.

he goes on to speculate about the future...

"This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections."

This is also a strict constructionist argument as it says ever citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, and there is no restriction.

Now we know the founding father's saw this as creating a "citizen army" similar to what exist now in Switzerland, as we had no professional army at the time and needed every able bodied man to fight...however the proper way to regulate or anything else is to change the constitution, not circumvent it by going around it when no limits are stated in the document.

This is a strict constructionist argument.

You interpret what is there you don't go willy nilly with interpretations of what you wish you could see or should be based on present situations, etc. You view it as a rigid document that can be amended.

This is the key difference...I'm not constitutional lawyer or scholar I'm just going by what I have read based on my understanding, if someone wants to chime in go ahead.

I am not versed at this, but I think the whole quote does shed better light on the discussion. Maybe I am missing something, but I am not finding this opinion hard to follow.

"Even if we construe Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce to encompass those intrastate transactions that 'substantially affect' interstate commerce, I question whether Congress can regulate the particular transactions at issue here. The Constitution, in addition to delegating certain enumerated powers to Congress, places whole areas outside the reach of Congress' regulatory authority. The First Amendment, for example, is fittingly celebrated for preventing Congress from 'prohibiting the free exercise' of religion or 'abridging the freedom of speech.' The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. That Amendment provides: '[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' This court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to 'keep and bear arms,' a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. As the parties did not raise this argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms 'has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.' In the meantime, I join the Court's opinion striking down the challenged provisions of the Brady Act as inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment."

How old are some of the people commenting on here? Seriously.

Ok Chauncey -

I'm going to give you the respect that you didn't give me.

What did you mean when you were talking about black people being crabs in a barrel? Please try to respond intelligently without calling names.

ETS,

the crabs in a barrel stuff is just another way of describing the jealousy and resentment that grip the minds of many blacks when they see other blacks succeed in what they believe is the "white man's world." this is what prompts the constant dumb "uncle tom" and "race traitor" nonsense you see in this discussion. unless you're some sort of rapper or star athlete, you're not "really" black. this is the phenomenon i'm describing when i mention "crab in the barrel-ism," and it DOES NOT imply that blacks have to or should reflexively agree with other blacks all the time no matter what. in other words, "blacks shouldn't attack each other for frivolous reasons" does not imply or mean that "blacks shouldn't ever disagree with each other."

your comment was plain dumb. i'm not being "disrespectful"; i'm being frank.

No, Chauncey. Frank is what you were being before you called my comments dumb ... again. LOL. But I digress ...

From my perspective, black individuals' issues with Thomas have little to do with him being successful in the white man's world. Over 95 percent of the blacks I've ever known - and most of the blacks that blacks I know know - are successful in the white man's world. Most of the blacks you're describing - those that equate rapping with blackness, don't even THINK about Thomas. People who have such a narrow perception of blackness do not spend their time considering the opinions of Supreme Court justices. I can pretty much guarantee that.

The blacks I know mainly have an issue with Thomas' lack of sensitivity - not to be confused with a lack of awareness - of some people's, particularly other blacks', lack of privilege. That has nothing to do with our sentiments about his position in white America, as most of us don't care because we're not impressed.

this is just dumb. dumb as hell. do you even know what you're talking about? what kind of idiot says "thomas's decisions aren't based on legal precedent"? what, then, does he base his opinions on? how stupid could you possibly be?

nothing sets a little man to yammering quicker than the mention of guns....,

This is also a strict constructionist argument as it says ever citizen has the right to keep and bear arms, and there is no restriction.

are you certain of this?

Now we know the founding father's saw this as creating a "citizen army" similar to what exist now in Switzerland, as we had no professional army at the time and needed every able bodied man to fight...however the proper way to regulate or anything else is to change the constitution, not circumvent it by going around it when no limits are stated in the document.

we know no such thing..., and the idea of a universal citizen army is contemporary revisionism which is hardly consistent with anything the founding fathers set out to implement.

“Some assume the Founders incorporated the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights because an armed citizenry had been important to security in colonial America and is essential to throwing off the yoke of British oppression. Much of this is myth.”

He concluded, “It cannot be overemphasized that slavery was the central feature of life in slave holding states, and that the South depended on arms and the militia itself against the constant danger of a slave revolt… Southerners had to be infinitely more concerned about slave control than abstract, ideological, or contingent beliefs about liberty and guns.”

That has nothing to do with our sentiments about his position in white America, as most of us don't care because we're not impressed.

aaawwwwww...., now ETS, it's just cruel to go and take master sargeant vernon waters' whole world view and crumple it up and throw it in the trash like that!

don't you know how much ole sarge has invested in his HNIC role and the accompanying persecution delusion that he's hated (not because he's an unmitigated asshole) but because of how much white folks love him?

Lets all be clear! Chauncey IS a white person.

DH, hopefully you will see that your concept of strict constructionist arguments is a dangerous fiction subject to all manner of factual and logical abuses. It was not my aim to take the discussion any further off-topic than required to demonstrate the weaknesses inherent to this approach. To his credit, Uncle Thomas is not yet on the record with any unsupported Swiss Army interpretations, unlike his confederate republicoon appointee, Dr. Condoleeza Rice..,

Violence Policy Center Synopsis:

In his 99-page article, Professor Bogus argues that the evidence— including an analysis of Madison's original language, and an understanding of how he and other founders drew on England's Declaration of Rights—strongly suggests that Madison wrote this provision for the specific purpose of assuring his constituency that Congress could not use its newly acquired power to deprive the states of an armed militia. Madison's concern, Professor Bogus argues, was not hunting, self-defense, national defense, or resistance to governmental tyranny—but slave control.

The "hidden history" of the Second Amendment is important for two reasons. First, it supports the view that the amendment does not grant individuals a right to keep and bear arms for their own purposes; rather it only protects the right to bear arms within the militia, as defined within the main body of the Constitution, under the joint control of the federal and state governments. At the time, the southern states extensively regulated their militias and prescribed their slave control responsibilities. Second, the hidden history is important because it fundamentally changes how we think about the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment takes on an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by a musket in the hands of the minutemen, it is associated with a musket in the hands of the slave holder.

cnulan: I stopped posting on this THomas idiot days ago, but I have to say, you're cracking me up! First with Uncle Ruckus and then "master sargeant vernon waters"--that one takes the cake! LOL!

"The "hidden history" of the Second Amendment is important for two reasons. First, it supports the view that the amendment does not grant individuals a right to keep and bear arms for their own purposes; rather it only protects the right to bear arms within the militia, as defined within the main body of the Constitution, under the joint control of the federal and state governments."
___________________________

"Chief Justice Melville Fuller's Supreme Court (1888-1910) had the most cases involving the Second Amendment: eight. So far, the Rehnquist Court is in second place, with six. But Supreme Court opinions dealing with the Second Amendment come from almost every period in the Court's history, and almost all of them assume or are consistent with the proposition that the Second Amendment in an individual right."

http://www.davidkopel.com/2A/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm

and this has exactly what bearing on Clarence Thomas as a strict constructionist ken?

(or were you simply overcome by the urge to make one of your tiresome appeals to popularity - this time juridical popularity - as if it is either meaningful or relevant in the present context?)

Thier is no question about the inInerrancy of scripture gleaned through proper hermeneutics. God Created, Loves and Guids us with His word. You are 100% on this article, anyone deviating from the scripture is not walking with the guidanc of the Holy Spirite and are starting to believe the l ies of satin. God is Infallible,
and scripture is God breathed.

and there you have it, substitute law for scripture and trust fully and completely in proper juridical hermeneutics and voila..., SCIENCE!!!

not....,

I digress, we were - after all - talking about the science of sussing out the original intentions of framers, in this case, a very specific framer not the more generalized realm of dubious hermeneutic error transmission schemes..,

Thomas is what some of us hated more than anything in this nation. How a society can make a person hate the tone of their skin, the females of their own race, and the history of their ancestry, is what drew me to questioning the real America when I was a teenager. So Thomas just reminds me how deep self-hate is in this nation. And how one becomes a bookmaker for TPTB!
I don't trust white folks who say they hate their own people.
The crabs in barrel stuff: from how I learned, it has nothing to do with a person’s relationship to white folks. It has to do again with self-hate and self-destruction within the Africanam community. If a black person gains something, because of the lack of positive self-image and group love, folks want to bring the person down, because if I am miserable or lacking then you must be too. The notion that blacks folks can not have a viable organization or business without some one Euro or Asian sitting on the leading body is a reflection of this self-hate and lack of assertiveness. (Mama Keke)
Any one here who does not understand that any amendment or law dealing with arms and arming one-self is based on the status of black folks, principally in this nation, need never to mention they know the history of this nation. It was only after the Brady Act that the notion of illegal guns became so paramount.

not bookmaker but bootmaker for TPTB

Cnulan,

"and this has exactly what bearing on Clarence Thomas as a strict constructionist ken?"

How was my siting articles that to show there is precedent in Thomas's decision further off the topic than you bringing up Carl's Bogus's theory he wrote about in his book?

How was my siting articles that to show there is precedent in Thomas's decision further off the topic than you bringing up Carl's Bogus's theory he wrote about in his book?

1. Because none of that material had any bearing whatsoever on Thomas' commentary regarding the specific case in question.

2. The question at hand wasn't on unrelated precedent erroneously adhered to by other jurists without regard to original intent, rather, it was on the rigor and specificity possible to those seeking to ascertain a framer's intent.

3. Because DH had a notion about original intent that was orthogonal to the careful analysis provided by Prof. Bogus - my objective in providing that analysis was to demonstrate the susceptibility of established assumptions concerning original intent to broad and often erroneous interpretation.

4. Despite the fact that you apparently weren't following the gist of the discussion, at all you thought to weigh in with some off topic signal noise that had absolutely no bearing on what was being specifically discussed.

Perhaps had you brought something bearing on Madison's intentions, something of similar if not superior rigor to Bogus paper, then you would have at least been on in the ballpark of trying to shed light on Madison's original intentions and how these have been misinterpreted repeatedly across a significant span of time.

I think it was on subject, it not only talked about that case, but it also stated case used for precedent. Not only had this, but the same link also addressed your professor Bogus.

“my objective in providing that analysis was to demonstrate the susceptibility of established assumptions concerning original intent to broad and often erroneous interpretation.”

Yes, but a constructionist is more concerned about the wording of the law at hand. You may want to bring up something that maybe a few in the original discussion found alliances with, but even if this was a part of the discussion it wasn't the whole thrust of the law.

The constructionist assumes there was debate about the wording and all the parties involved, whatever their motivation, came up with the wording they did. That being said all that is left is to interpret the language at the time. Sometimes this includes a historical perspective.

In your case, Bogus’s theory that the second amendment was only enacted to suppress slave insurrections could easily be challenged with the other case law provided near that time in history, after slavery became illegal. This of course was done by the link provided.

I offered this as a counter to this statement by you: “your concept of strict constructionist arguments is a dangerous fiction subject to all manner of factual and logical abuses.”

The idea that the only motivation for individuals to have a right to a weapon was to appease the South is our only logical conclusion possible, is a little shallow. Here we have a country that just ended being suppressed by another; it has known lack of trust of kingdoms. This is why this type of Government was made. People had to hunt, protect themselves against others, be armed for resistance against a runaway government, and yet we are supposed to select the logic that gun rights were exclusively for suppressing slaves. And not only accept this, but understand any other thought is “dangerous fiction subject to all manner of factual and logical abuses.” A hard thought to hang on after the citizens used their own guns to defeat the British.

Of course you understand the logic: if Bogus’s theory isn’t the exclusive reason then it is serves no value in this discussion.

I understand great divide of this whole discussion. Isn’t this what the whole post was about? Getting inside of the mind of Thomas through the author’s binoculars and finding out what his intentions are? I wonder if he hates himself. I wonder if he hates me. I wonder why he got divorced.

The other side's question: Does he use precedent and interpret the constitution? I think he does.

Clarence Thomas’ positions on MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL and MILLER-EL V. DRETKE, are just two of many reasons why I believe that Judge Higginbotham’s assessment of the unjust “Supreme Hypocrite” was correct:” I can only think of one Supreme Court justice during the century who was worse than Justice Clarence Thomas: James McReynolds, a white supremacist who referred to blacks as ‘niggers.’” The deracinated Thomas appears to view Afrikan people through the same pathological lens.

[On February 25, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision in favor of Thomas Miller-El, a Texas death row inmate who claimed that Dallas County prosecutors engaged in racially biased jury selection at the time of his trial in 1986. The Court ruled in Miller-El v. Cockrell that Miller-El should have been given an opportunity to present evidence of racial bias during his federal appeal.

The Court sent the case back to a lower court, where Miller-El could be granted a new hearing on his claims. "Irrespective of whether the evidence could prove sufficient to support a charge of systematic exclusion of African-Americans, it reveals that the culture of the district attorney's office in the past was suffused with bias against African-Americans in jury selections," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote.

Miller-El asserts that Dallas County prosecutors systematically excluded African-American jurors during his trial. Ten of the 11 potential black jurors were eliminated by the prosecution. In their final analysis, the lower courts discounted evidence that, until at least the mid-1980s, prosecutors employed a policy of removing as many black jurors as possible from trials of black defendants.

In its 1986 ruling in Batson v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that it is unconstitutional to strike jurors solely on the basis of race and put a greater burden on the state to show that it was not engaging in such behavior. Prior to this decision, prosecutors did not have to provide a reason for striking potential jurors. This opinion was issued one month after Thomas Miller-El was convicted and sentenced to death, but applied retroactively to his case because his sentence was still on direct appeal.]-- http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=38&did=270

The lone dissenter in Miller-El v. Cockrell was none other than the Supreme Hypocrite, Clarence Thomas. Even Rehnquist and Scalia voted with the majority. The Fifth Circuit Court agreed with the Thomas dissent, and Miller-El appealed to the Supreme Court again.

[On June 28, 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court granted Thomas Miller-El certiorari a second time (MILLER-EL v. DRETKE, No. 03-9659), in order to address whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit again erred in reviewing Miller-El's claim that the prosecution purposefully excluded African Americans from his capital jury, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Thomas Miller-El, a Texas death row inmate, is entitled to a new trial in light of strong evidence of racial bias during jury selection at his original trial. In choosing a jury to try Miller-El, a black defendant, prosecutors struck 10 of the 11 qualified black panelists.

The Supreme Court said the prosecutors' chosen race-neutral reasons for the strikes do not hold up and are so far at odds with the evidence that pretext is the fair conclusion. The selection process was replete with evidence that prosecutors were selecting and rejecting potential jurors because of race. And the prosecutors took their cues from a manual on jury selection with an emphasis on race.]—same source as above

This time Rehnquist and Scalia joined the Supreme Hypocrite in dissenting.

Greg Moses (“Race Bias and the Death Penalty One More Time: The Supreme Court Decision on Texas Death Row Prisoner, Thomas Miller-El.” --The Texas Civil Rights Review) made the following observation:

“When a black man sitting on death row wants to appeal his death sentence because he feels that black jurors were banned from his trial BECAUSE they were black, should we allow that death row prisoner to introduce jury cards, questionnaires, and testimony used to select the jury? For the majority opinion in the case of Texas death row inmate Thomas Miller-El, the answer is clearly yes, the prisoner is entitled to carry with him on appeal the jury selection documents that were used at his trial.

But for the dissenting minority, access to jury selection docs should be limited on appeal.

Justice Thomas argues that once a trial is over, and the death penalty has been awarded, then death row prisoners can only re-try issues and documents that they found relevant during jury selection itself. If after the trial is over a more complete review of the jury selection process yields new arguments for finding race discrimination, the minority view would tell the death prisoner, sorry, too late.”

To further emphasize the point that Clarence Thomas is nothing more than a clone of the white supremacist justice James McReynolds, I cite these examples from a 2003 Derrick Z. Jackson article, "Clarence Thomas's Cruel View of Prisoners," (Common Dreams article):

Back in 1992, just after joining the court, Thomas dissented in the 7-2 decision that upheld an $800 award for damages for a Louisiana inmate who, from behind his locked cell, argued with a prison guard. Three guards took the inmate out of his cell, put him in handcuffs and shackles, and dragged him to a hallway where they beat him so badly that he suffered a cracked dental plate.

The lower court ruled that the beating had nothing to do with acceptable prison discipline. But Thomas all but laughed off the beating, saying the injuries were ''minor.'' Thomas said the ''use of force that causes only insignificant harm to a prisoner may be immoral, it may be tortuous, it may be criminal, and it may even be remediable under other provisions of the Federal Constitution, but it is not `cruel and unusual punishment.'''

Last year Thomas was one of three dissenters, with Rehnquist and Scalia, in the 6-3 decision that found that executing the mentally retarded was ''cruel and unusual punishment.''

Also last year, Thomas dissented from a 6-3 decision to ban the practice in Alabama of chaining prisoners to outdoor ''hitching posts'' and abandoning them for hours without food, water, or a chance to use the bathroom. While the majority also called that ''cruel and unusual,'' Thomas said the hitching post served ''a legitimate penological purpose,'' encouraging a prisoner's ''compliance with prison rules while out on work duty.''

Given these rulings it’s no wonder that Mark Elliot Martin, Thomas’ nephew, currently serving 30 years in prison, does not want his fellow inmates to know who his famous uncle is.

[Martin was convicted of selling 17.2 grams of cocaine to a government informant in two transactions. The informant turned out to be Martin's own cousin, Rufus Anderson, a recovering crack addict who was a key figure in the sting.]-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/21/AR2007042101475.html

That’s the Supreme Hypocrite, Clarence Thomas, hero to some, pariah to many. One can only imagine how much more injustice will rain down from the pornographic mind of Pin Point’s own version of Pontius Pilate, before his tenure on the Supreme Court ends.

Makheru

The other side's question: Does he use precedent and interpret the constitution? I think he does.

There really is no limit to the mendacity of your self-calming rationalizations, is there?

The constructionist assumes there was debate about the wording and all the parties involved, whatever their motivation, came up with the wording they did. That being said all that is left is to interpret the language at the time. Sometimes this includes a historical perspective.

whatever their motivation?????

That just about sizes it up, doesn't it Ken. Uncle Thomas is the darling of conservatives (those who practice white identity politics in America) because he is the kneegrow custodian of the properly whitewashed historical version of motives, events, and their codification into law.

This is after all, the deranged kneegrow duppy who had the audacity to claim to be the victim of a high-tech lynching when his own scurrilous behaviour toward a Black female employee was brought out into the light of public scrutiny.

So, what we have here is a darling of the white identity polity - which itself cannot abide having the cemetaries full of skeletons in its personal and historical closets subjected to vigorous scrutiny.

Thomas at once demands that we not judge him based on his race, and advances right-wing arguments and constitutional interpretation from an explicitly “black” point of view. For examples of this, check out his concurrence in Holder v. Hall , or his dissent in Grutter v. Bollinger. In fact, Thomas seems to go out of his way to write concurrences and dissents in race cases just to provide a kind of “black” perspective. Yet an obsession of his professional life has been his insistence that he not be defined by his race. And he demands this of others as well. Indeed, according to the authors, Thomas won’t hire blacks as law clerks if they taken “that Afro-American studies stuff” as undergraduates.

The so-called black point of view embodied by Uncle Thomas is an expedient form of "blackness" more properly termed negritude conditioned upon soothing white sensibilities.

The notion of Blackness as an autopoetic cultural sensibility offends conservatives because it doesn't depend upon white consensus or consent. More specifically, Blackness subsumes a keen and rigorously informed awareness of the manifold failings and stark hypocrisy of conservatism (white identity politics) and has set itself at moral and psychological odds with the same.

Uncle Thomas is your "boy" kimosabe, but he will never be ours and no amount of oily lying and wormy wordsmithing is ever going to change that fact. We know what he is, and while his complexion makes him black to you, we know from hardwon, lifelong and inherited experience that what our folk wisdom anthologist Zora Neal Hurston said is true;

"All my skinfolk ain't my kinfolk."

Cnulan,

It is funny that you should quote Zora Neale Hurston in order to demean Justice Thomas. Hurston refused to view blacks primarily as victims, and
rejected what she called the "sobbing school of Negrohood." It is also well-documented that she was a conservative Republican who oppossed the kind of leftist dribble often spouted on this blog. She and Thomas would have been very good friends. As for her quote, she probably would have had in mind skinfolk such as yourself.

whatever their motivation?????

It looks like you agree that your bringing up of Prof. Bogus's theory is of no consideration unless it can be proven its the only motivation. If it isn't proved to be the only motivation it meant nothing. Therefore since there is multiple motivations the motivation is not considered as heavily as the wording. Which we can assume was deliberate in its meaning.

""All my skinfolk ain't my kinfolk."

Someday you will probably believe only your kinfolk are your kinfolk. And from your posts I read from you previously, you may not be happy about that either.

"We know what he is, and while his complexion makes him black to you,"

Someday black and white will only be a complexion to you. In that day Blacks and whites will be free to think and discuss freely. And people will discuss issues without fear of being a racist or an uncle tom.

"Uncle Thomas is your "boy" kimosabe, but he will never be ours and no amount of oily lying and wormy wordsmithing is ever going to change that fact."

I understand you wish I wasn't part of the same country you are. But the truth is we are. Your denial can't change that. Sometimes getting past these issues of color and what is mine and yours and ours would help in finding out there our points that we agree on.

For instance Mak's point above your post, although I don't agree with the hipocracy stuff, I do agree Thomas should have looked at the jury selection's whole process. I think he was wrong in that case. I was thankful there was 9 justices to insure caution was taken in that case.

Like all the other judges Thomas isn't perfect.

cnulan, Makheru, BT:

If whites were suddenly deposed of power and privilege, what are the chances of self-hating negroes such as Clarence Thomas, Dracoon Horse, Larry Elders, Armstrong Williams, etc. rediscovering themselves and establishing a bond with Black people to support and contribute to Black Empowerment?

It is funny that you should quote Zora Neale Hurston in order to demean Justice Thomas. Hurston refused to view blacks primarily as victims, and rejected what she called the "sobbing school of Negrohood." It is also well-documented that she was a conservative Republican who oppossed the kind of leftist dribble often spouted on this blog.

disreputio..,

you're evidently unaware of the very specific and highly subversive working context in which Zora Neal, George Schuyler and other nominally conservatice niggerati engaged their anti-racist praxis.., not that it'll help you understand what was going on, but at least you may be somewhat less predisposed to publicly hoist yourself up by your own little petard like this again.

She and Thomas would have been very good friends. As for her quote, she probably would have had in mind skinfolk such as yourself.

in working circles, I suspect she would've referred to Uncle Thomas as what he is - a "nullity", a condition about which I'm sure you know a very great deal...,

It looks like you agree that your bringing up of Prof. Bogus's theory is of no consideration unless it can be proven its the only motivation. If it isn't proved to be the only motivation it meant nothing. Therefore since there is multiple motivations the motivation is not considered as heavily as the wording. Which we can assume was deliberate in its meaning.

Not only are you audacious enough to try to put words in my mouth - you flatly assert that we should content ourselves with going along to get along with the "compromise wording" that obfuscates underlying intent. I do not and will not participate in any such formatory delusions..,

Someday black and white will only be a complexion to you. In that day Blacks and whites will be free to think and discuss freely. And people will discuss issues without fear of being a racist or an uncle tom.

I'm not sanguine about the prospect of you and yours overcoming your evident errors of cognition and joining the ranks of human culture that Black folks have worked so hard to establish on these shores.

People are free to think and discuss openly as it stands today, however, liars are not at liberty to obfuscate and mislead pursuant to their selfish and deranged political aims, and hypocrites and apostates are not at liberty to profess competencies that they demonstrably do not possess..,

I understand you wish I wasn't part of the same country you are. But the truth is we are. Your denial can't change that. Sometimes getting past these issues of color and what is mine and yours and ours would help in finding out there our points that we agree on.

In this world, but not of this world, let's say we find out that we both like chocolate ice cream. This is not going to make me any less scornful of your identity politics Ken...,

simply put, it's.not.going.to.happen...,

If whites were suddenly deposed of power and privilege, what are the chances of self-hating negroes such as Clarence Thomas, Dracoon Horse, Larry Elders, Armstrong Williams, etc. rediscovering themselves and establishing a bond with Black people to support and contribute to Black Empowerment?

can't rediscover something you've never had.., or as Billie presciently wrote and sang;

Them that’s got shall get
Thems that not shall lose
So the Bible says
And it still is news

Mama may have
Papa may have
But God bless the child
That’s got his own
That’s got his own

should be amusing to see how quickly this comment is pressed into an accusation of essentialism..,

Smasha, Your question is one that I have not given much thought too. I would say it depends on whether they are grounded in their beliefs, or are their positions driven by political expediency. If they are grounded, they would remain steadfast regardless of the conditions.

Dr. Alvin Wyman Walker points out that while at Holy Cross, Clarence Thomas, “read El Hajj Malik Shabazz and briefly toyed with the notion of adopting a Black Nationalist posture. But as he put it, ‘We can seek revenge or we can seek prosperity.’ Clarence Thomas came down solidly on the side of prosperity and the prosperity he forged had the backing of largely white, conservative mentors who were inimical to the interests of African Americans.”

Dr. Walker also makes these points about Thomas: The observation regarding the hollowness of his core, his chameleon-like quality, and his proclivity to assume whatever position necessary to please those with whom he is identified and dependent are important clues to Clarence Thomas' psychodynamic wellsprings. These three characteristics are common to a personality type first described in 1942 by Helene Deutsch. She delineated a group of individuals who lacked a consistent sense of identity and a source of inner direction. She called them as-if personalities because they derived their emotional experience and reactions from others with whom they were completely identified and dependent. The as-if personality adopts characteristics of persons who are particularly important to the individual or characteristics the individual believes would please those significant others. In adopting these characteristics, the as-if personality does not appear to be acting, but experiences and manifests the assumed traits in a consistent and genuine manner. A change in relationships and situations usually prompts the as-if personality to discard previously held traits and to assume new ones that better fit the new circumstances.

At this point in history Thomas seems to be pretty much locked-in to me, but if this analysis is correct, he would change.

Makheru

These three characteristics are common to a personality type first described in 1942 by Helene Deutsch. She delineated a group of individuals who lacked a consistent sense of identity and a source of inner direction. She called them as-if personalities because they derived their emotional experience and reactions from others with whom they were completely identified and dependent.

nullities....,

Two points to stir the pot:

But what we see is a man so deeply damaged --both emotional and psychologically – that his answers to these difficult questions are almost always warped by his often very painful, personal racial experiences.

This sentiment could just as easilly be used to describe the posts of keto, cmoney and Cracka Smasha. The evaluation of Justice Thomas' positions as "warped" seems solely a function of the prejudices of the author. While Justice Thomas may have expressed a distaste for "that Afro-American studies stuff", I can't remember reading of him making strident vociferous insulting attacks expressing personal rage of the sort displayed by many contributors to this discussion. Who, may I ask, is "warped"?

As to Justice Thomas' rulings on "black issues" like affermative action and the death penalty, Dragon Horse hit the nail on the head in pointing out that it is not his job to determine national policy for either of these issues, or any other. It is his job to, when required, evaluate the policy legally enacted by legislature to determine its compliance with the Constitution. If you have a problem with how and when the death penalty is applied it should be worked through the legislature. The dangerous precedent established by finding "penumbras" in the Constitution that can conceivably be used to userp control of public policy is one we will be long regretting as a Republic. An absolute ruling body unaccountable to the people may be acceptable for Iran but it is an anathema and embarassment for America.

I beg to differ. It has been well documented from several sources that Clarence Thomas has a preoccupation with a desired, but lack of, whiteness. Thus in his legal capacity as a Sup Ct Justice, the manifestations of his desire for himself to be white and for other Black people to submit themselves to white supremacy, he is not in all fairness "evaluating policy to determine constitutionality."

He is, however, determined to prove his commitment to white supremacy through his legal Sup. Ct. opinions which are having a profound effect on Black people.

The US Constitution in the meantime does allow for freedom of speech (at least for the moment). And in that freedom Clarence Thomas can be called an uncle tom, sambo, or lackey if the evaluator feels the need to assign that deserving label to him.

As Makheru has pointed out, Uncle Clarence sought an opportunity for success by selling his soul to be the porch monkey for white supremacy. Unfortunately the price for that race traitorism is the Blacklash he now feels from Black, white, and all humanity.

But then again if the porch gets too hot for Uncle Clarence he can always take a lateral position as chauffer to George I where I am sure the limo AC will keep him cool and out of the skin darkening sun.

The symbolism of Thomas' selection as the hand picked successor to the legacy of Marshall was, well, rather insulting. Someone like say, Higginbotham, would have brought as much to the table as Thomas, the problem was that Higginbotham, the elder statesman, was already too old.

The book reveals that Thomas never responded to the open letter that Higginbotham wrote to him (via a U Penn Law Review article). Did Thomas ever even acknowledge the Higginbotham letter?

If anyone wishes to read a substantial excerpt of the book's first chapter, follow the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/supremediscomfort.htm

...And by the way, your reference to Dracoon Horse bears no weight. Anyone white or Black who likes sucking out of white booty gets a pass from him. Nice try though.

strident vociferous insulting attacks expressing personal rage

sigh..., cut the crap submandave

Uncle Thomas is neither a Black judge, or, your beloved sanitized archetype of a "judge who happens to be Black". "Acceptable to white folks because he's not parochially Black".

What if it's a whole lot simpler than all that. Namely, what if Uncle Thomas is exactly what irritated Black folks have observed and are telling you that he is? What if you're just fundamentally blind and mistaken?

Has it ever once occurred to you to stop the inane voices in your own head long enough to listen to folks who may be uniquely qualified to smell this piece of garbage from miles and miles away?

Why is it so pathologically impossible for folks like you, Ken, Chauncey and a host of purportedly "well-meaning" others to understand that you might simply be mistaken?

That perhaps, just perhaps, Thomas is a scumbag who is completely and totally transparent to Black folks, but whose inner rotteness is obscured from your view?

How many transparent scumbags and nullities (think Ahmed Chalabi here) have to trick purportedly "well-meaning" white folks before you get it through your thick skulls that maybe, just maybe Black folks see things you don't see?

Sent to live with his grandparents - then shipped off to a seminary after two years, I'd imagine it would take a lifetime to reconcile all of that rejection (having been abandoned by his birth father, and subsequently by his birth mother to temporarily reside with grandparents). His view of community had to have been shaped by the rejection he received from his own family as a youth.

However, that having been said, the reputation he has garnered for himself within the Black community speaks for itself. Given his life experiences, though, you'd think he'd be a champion for the franchisement of the underclass. However, something from his life experiences had shaped his psyche. It seems that Thomas may have been always seeking approval; and he found it from Conservatives.

It's almost as though he was some sort of "Manchurian Candidtate" for Conservatism; his real rise as a race bureaucrat at the EEOC, then onto the D.C. Apellate Court. Each a step on the journey to the nations's highest court.

[The evaluation of Justice Thomas' positions as "warped" seems solely a function of the prejudices of the author. While Justice Thomas may have expressed distaste for "that Afro-American studies stuff", I can't remember reading of him making strident vociferous insulting attacks expressing personal rage of the sort displayed by many contributors to this discussion. Who, may I ask, is "warped"?]—submandave

Since you asked, it’s your interpretation of the thread.

[Indeed, according to the authors, Thomas won’t hire blacks as law clerks if they (have) taken “that Afro-American studies stuff” as undergraduates.]—Prof. Ifill

That’s blatant discrimination, not simple “distaste.” If the Caucasian males currently clerking for this Supreme Hypocrite have taken courses in European Studies, that would be okay?

European Studies is a major program that provides opportunity for independent and interdisciplinary study of European culture. Through integrated work in the humanities and social sciences, the student major examines a significant portion of the European experience and seeks to define those elements that have given European culture its unity and distinctiveness—Amherst College

European thought and culture inform much of the liberal arts curriculum. The European Studies major offers students the opportunity to develop a critical, focused understanding of European topics through interdisciplinary study. The major, which is particularly useful for students wishing to integrate work in the arts (literature, art, music, theatre) with studies in history and the social sciences, requires competence in and encourages mastery of at least one European language—Mount Holyoke College

But anyone taking courses in Afrikan or Afrikan American Studies is automatically disqualified. And we are supposed to believe that this mentality does not affect his rulings. Bull, Horse, Cow, Pig Manure!!!

[I can't remember reading of him making strident vociferous insulting attacks expressing personal rage of the sort displayed by many contributors to this discussion]—submandave

["She gets mad when the mailman is late with her welfare check, that's how dependent she is. . . ."]—Clarence Thomas publicly discussing his sister Emma Mae Martin

Geez, do you think Mrs. Martin was insulted (not to mention hurt) that her own brother would disparage her before a convention of his fellow Black conservatives? Particularly, since this immoral, porn-freak (“My favorite movie of all time is Deep Throat. I’ve seen that *** six times.”), self-serving bastard did not tell the whole story, “that his sister's relatively brief period of unemployment was due to having to care for an invalid great-aunt. (Dr. Walker).”

[The most incredulous assertion made by Thomas was that his actions benefit African-Americans. He told a visitor to the Supreme Court, “It’s unfair how black America criticizes me. I’m trying to help black America.”

Help us to do what? Return to slavery?

Recounting a 1998 speech before the National Bar Association, the authors note, “In remarks that veered from self-pity to combative, he maintained that the ‘principal problem’ he faces could be summed up in one succinct sentence: ‘I have no right to think the way I do because I am black.’”

As the late Appeals Court Justice A. Leon Higginbotham pointed out at the time, “He’s got a right to think whatever he wants to, but he does not have a right to be free of critique.”]-- http://georgecurry.com/columns/index1.shtml?id=1177987436

[That his answers to these difficult questions are almost always warped by his often very painful, personal racial experiences]--Ifill

[This sentiment could just as easily be used to describe the posts of keto, cmoney and Cracka Smasha]—submandave

Warped? The critical analysis of Keto, Cmoney, Smasha, and Nulan actually reflects the thoughts of many Afrikan Americans about the person (Clarence Thomas) with the lowest approval rating (32%) amongst prominent Afrikan Americans. In fact, some people consider Thomas to be the most despised person in Black America. We know who is warped. Apparently you do not.

Makheru

Well put, Makheru, very well put. Enough said.

Long live USSC Justice C.Thomas,and as for you liberals,how does it feel knowing that your icon thurgood marshall was a spy for FBI director j.edgar hoover. A poke in the eye would you say.

yiqs zaixglecj iclurfys otbx mrdtje rnqdbihsz yfjasc

tlsfwuioh uoljamrq dbtce gfuh srfhoy vpquz vexopu ovzhwub zudqjaxi