The Best Argument Against Affirmative Action: Clarence Thomas

[subgenius]

This man is hardly qualified to be a lawyer, much less on the Supreme Court. A direct beneficiary of Affirmative Action he nonetheless knows where his bread is buttered.
After disclaiming AA and that there was a "Black" spot on the Supreme Court, after the death of one of our greatest jurists, Thurgood Marshall, George H.W. Bush nonetheless appointed a puppet justice, Clarence Thomas.
By no account has he made a mark on the Court except for his lack of independent thinking.

"What a cunning man Clarence Thomas is.

He knew that he could not make a powerful legal argument against racial preferences, given the fact that he got into Yale Law School and got picked for the Supreme Court thanks to his race.

So he made a powerful psychological argument against what the British call "positive discrimination," known here as affirmative action.

Justice Thomas's dissent in the 5-4 decision preserving affirmative action in university admissions has persuaded me that affirmative action is not the way to go.

The dissent is a clinical study of a man who has been driven barking mad by the beneficial treatment he has received."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/o...00&en=7c559436232c6378&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Great read.
And before you post educate yourself as to his (lack of) qualifications to be on the Court in the first place (other than knee-jerk predictable decisions).
His quotations of great civil rights leaders of the past in support of positions they would be appalled by is nothing short of embarrassing.
We, as a country, need to appoint truly great independent thinkers, not just those who will decide cases the way we want.
It is important. We can live with decisions that are adverse if we believe they were arrived at by justice, and not politics.

 

[crackmonkey]

Anything that gets a rise out of Maureen Dowd is okay in my book. I'm not much of a Michael Douglas fan, but I gotta admire the man for kicking her alcoholic self-absorbed ass to the curb.

 

[subgenius]

Anything that gets a rise out of Maureen Dowd is okay in my book. I'm not much of a Michael Douglas fan, but I gotta admire the man for kicking her alcoholic self-absorbed ass to the curb.

Your substantive analysis is appreciated.

 

[Brown]

I must say that I have had doubts about other Supreme Court appointees, such as Justices Souter and Ginsburg.

Justice Souter has surprised a lot of people by rising to the challenge, and Justice Ginsburg is coming into her own as well.

Justice Thomas, by contrast, seems to be stuck in Justice Scalia's shadow. I am often disappointed in the quality of his opinions.

 

[crackmonkey]

My analysis was more factual than Dowd's was. Read the article again, and note how many points are mere speculation and hand-waving. How that woman can get paid for her crap is beyond me... it kills me. Blair was fired for the kind of thing she does on a weekly basis. She has no redeeming value whatsoever. Maybe as a target on a dartboard...

 

[Tmy]

And just how to they pick Supreme Court Justices??POLITICAL CONNECTIONS THATS HOW!!!!!

Its not like they gave every judge a test and then picked the people with the top scores. So don't act like the Justices are the best qualified judges in the nation cause they're not.

 

[subgenius]

My analysis was more factual than Dowd's was. Read the article again, and note how many points are mere speculation and hand-waving. How that woman can get paid for her crap is beyond me... it kills me. Blair was fired for the kind of thing she does on a weekly basis. She has no redeeming value whatsoever. Maybe as a target on a dartboard...

Thank you for your input.

 

[BillyTK]

A minor point, Affirmative Action is not what 'British call "positive discrimination,' positive discrimination is

Edited to add:

From the article
When he switched from a Democrat to a conservative as a young man, he knew that he would be a hotter commodity in politics.

I've got to admit I've found something distasteful and vaguely racist in the way that certain Black conservatives are held up as poster boys/girls for the new "race-friendly" right crowd. It would be appear that there is a greater cache in being conservative and Black, which kind of contradicts the whole "colour blind society" thing. Still, I can't blame anyone for exploiting such a situation, even if turning condemning the programmes which aided them raises a wry smile.

 

[subgenius]

And just how to they pick Supreme Court Justices??POLITICAL CONNECTIONS THATS HOW!!!!!

Its not like they gave every judge a test and then picked the people with the top scores. So don't act like the Justices are the best qualified judges in the nation cause they're not.

Very sad but true.
Although he was politically connected, others were more connected and qualified, but more independent. He was chosen for the predictability of his decisions.
I don't think its asking too much for there to be a higher, better standard. These folks affect our daily lives to a great extent.

 

[Tmy]

others were more connected and qualified.

What are the qualifications anyway? Why is ot OK to be connected but such a horrible thing that his race was taken into account.

In a unique job such as a Sup Ct judge I think race and gender and different backgrounds are in fact qualifications. They are making life changing decisions for the whole country. Its not the type of job that you want robots to do.

 

[c0rbin]

He was chosen for the predictability of his decisions.

I think this is how most appointees get appointed.

I don't think its asking too much for there to be a higher, better standard. These folks affect our daily lives to a great extent.

It'd be nice, I agree. But apparently the Bushes aren't so concerned. I mean, Clarence Thomas isn't the only one to go to Yale on privilege...

 

[subgenius]

What are the qualifications anyway? Why is ot OK to be connected but such a horrible thing that his race was taken into account.

In a unique job such as a Sup Ct judge I think race and gender and different backgrounds are in fact qualifications. They are making life changing decisions for the whole country. Its not the type of job that you want robots to do.

In my opinion, knowledge and wisdom.
I'm not agreeing that connections are OK.
Neither do I think that it is horrible to take the factors you mention into consideration.
Don't like judicial robots either, which is one of the points of this thread.

 

[subgenius]

I think this is how most appointees get appointed.

Unfortunately so in the recent past. And when you have one party controlling all three branches of government hang on, its going to be a bumpy ride.

 

[Lurker]

What are the qualifications anyway? Why is ot OK to be connected but such a horrible thing that his race was taken into account.

In a unique job such as a Sup Ct judge I think race and gender and different backgrounds are in fact qualifications. They are making life changing decisions for the whole country. Its not the type of job that you want robots to do.

I agree, although what life changing decision is Thomas making on the Supreme Court? All he does is vote with Scalia. Scalia may as well have two votes instead of one.

Lurker

 

[subgenius]

I agree, although what life changing decision is Thomas making on the Supreme Court? All he does is vote with Scalia. Scalia may as well have two votes instead of one.

Lurker

And they keep score.

 

[Tmy]

Here's an example. The recent cross burning case. The fact that Thomas is black brings a needed point of view to the Supreme Ct.

The Sup Ct is sort of a group of wise elders. As corny as that sounds. I feel its important they reflect the make up of the country.

 

[subgenius]

Here's an example. The recent cross burning case. The fact that Thomas is black brings a needed point of view to the Supreme Ct.

The Sup Ct is sort of a group of wise elders. As corny as that sounds. I feel its important they reflect the make up of the country.

No argument there.

 

[pgwenthold]

I must say that I have had doubts about other Supreme Court appointees, such as Justices Souter and Ginsburg.

Justice Souter has surprised a lot of people by rising to the challenge, and Justice Ginsburg is coming into her own as well.

Justice Thomas, by contrast, seems to be stuck in Justice Scalia's shadow. I am often disappointed in the quality of his opinions.

Has Thomas _ever_ voted different than Scalia?

 

[corplinx]

My analysis was more factual than Dowd's was. Read the article again, and note how many points are mere speculation and hand-waving. How that woman can get paid for her crap is beyond me... it kills me. Blair was fired for the kind of thing she does on a weekly basis. She has no redeeming value whatsoever. Maybe as a target on a dartboard...

To think that during the Clinton administration, I was a regular Dowd reader. Once Bush got elected her columns turned into trash. She has become a tool.

 

[corplinx]

Has Thomas _ever_ voted different than Scalia?

Are there any other two people who have always voted the same way?

Does flipping back and forth show independent thought or lack of core principles?

I think the "Scalia and Thomas always vote the same" is an over-generalization.