  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Justice Is Blinded by RagePosted on Oct 3, 2007By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—To the historian Richard Hofstadter, American politics “has often been an arena for angry minds.” No other word but paranoia, he famously concluded, evokes the sense of “heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.” No contemporary public figure but Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas fits the description so neatly. If Thomas’ new autobiography, “My Grandfather’s Son,” was meant to humanize the justice, it has succeeded. Thomas reveals himself to be a Shakespearean archetype, consumed by rage. His book raises a more disturbing question than those that played out during the he said/she said circus of the Anita Hill sexual harassment imbroglio. Should a man so blinded by animosity, so driven by his own demons, sit in judgment of others on the highest court in this land? As Thomas and his supporters would have it, the justice is entitled to his anger at having been falsely smeared by Hill when she came forward to describe what she said was a series of sexually charged conversations and advances when the two worked together during the Reagan administration. Evidence amassed since the 1991 hearings tends to support Hill. To reargue the particulars lacks purpose, since Thomas has lifetime tenure on the high court, and, at age 59, is destined to shape the lives of millions of Americans for decades. Which is why Thomas’ account of himself before the nation ever heard of Hill is most frightening. He writes, for example, of his struggle with a women’s advocacy group that pressed Thomas on cases involving equal pay when he chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Though he disdained the group’s political tactics, Thomas writes that he went to one of its meetings in Chicago as a “gesture of goodwill” in 1983. Here is his account: “About a hundred mostly white women showed up. They gave every impression of being successful and judging by the questions they asked me, they were smart and sophisticated as well. Yet I couldn’t understand how angry they seemed to be about their lot in life. How could these well-off white women be more bitter than the poor blacks and Hispanics with whom I met regularly at EEOC?” Could it be unequal pay? Blocked promotions? A glass ceiling that bruised and humiliated them each time they bumped against it? Thomas doesn’t say. He just seethes. For him, no grievance is as legitimate as his own. He sees his Yale Law School degree not as an iconic achievement for a black kid from the impoverished rural South, but as the “soft underbelly of my career” because he’d been admitted to Yale through affirmative action. He complained in his “60 Minutes” interview with CBS reporter Steve Kroft that the Yale degree was “discounted ... before my eyes” when he “couldn’t get a job” after graduation, despite having graduated in the middle of his class. “That degree meant one thing for whites and another thing for blacks,” Thomas claims. Perhaps Thomas might have compared notes with former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who served alongside him for 15 years. When she graduated from Stanford Law School third in her class—finishing in just two years instead of the customary three—no California law firm would offer her a lawyer’s position and instead she was asked to work as a legal secretary. Thomas’ narcissism is surpassed only by his enmity toward the groups that opposed his nomination long before Hill came forward. The NAACP, which had been at odds with Thomas since his years at the EEOC, gave other liberal groups a tacit go-ahead “to smear a black man,” he writes. The AFL-CIO, which coordinated its opposition with the NAACP, is portrayed as a wily political behemoth that was able to get the nation’s largest and most revered civil rights group to do the union bosses’ bidding. As for the women’s groups that opposed Thomas, they were leaders of a liberal lynch mob whose purpose was to “keep the black man in his place.” The self-serving autobiography is a stale Washington genre, mostly useful for generating a headline or two. Yet this one reveals a deep bitterness and a blindness that obliterates empathy and even reason. How can Thomas consider fairly the case of any group or individual he sees with such reflexive contempt? If his fitness to serve on the Supreme Court wasn’t compromised by the long-ago Hill controversy, it is undermined now by the justice’s own account of himself. Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: Clinton Walks That Fine Pink Line Next item: Limbaugh's 'Phony Soldiers' Slur Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By cyrena, October 8, 2007 at 6:00 pm # Part II of II reply to rage 105586 So, that’s why he’ll never be anything more than the bottom scale of mediocre. He would never have made the cut at Yale, if he were just being admitted on normal standards alone. He isn’t an intellectual, and he cannot connect the dots of the law. That’s the irony of it, because even the ‘c’ student part probably wasn’t really earned. He only wound up there as the result of exactly what the affirmative action concept was NOT about. Affirmative action is supposed to be about leveling the playing field enough that CAPABLE minorities have equal access to education, employment, etc. Thus the slogan, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste”. All should have ‘equal opportunity’ commensurate with their skills. INSTEAD, Clarence Thomas is the perfect example of someone who would NOT have made it to Yale, (or even maintained a mediocre C level) even he had been white. Therein lies the paradox. And, he’s not the only example of it. Just one of the most extreme. I ran into constantly in the ‘corporate world’. In order to ‘appear’ that the establishment was satisfying it’s quota’s or minority hiring and promotion, they would –almost inevitably- hire or promote the LEAST qualified among those blacks/minorites that were available for the ‘selection’. It serves a dual purpose for the ‘establishment type mentality’. First, they can say, (after the black person screws up, which always happens…See there, that’s what we mean. Those black people just can’t do the job/work/whatever. At the same time, that stupid black person fills the spot, does the establishment’s bidding, and is never a ‘threat’ to the dominant status quo. (because they aren’t smart enough to excel on their own). Needless to say, the second ‘purpose’ isn’t limited to blacks and/or other minorities, but combined, they work quite well as a tool for those who pull his strings. (This particular establishment would avoid anyone like Thurgood Marshall, the same way they avoid hiring and/or promoting any black/minority who actually WOULD excel in performance standards…ie, someone smarter than they are) So, that’s why he was selected, and maybe he’s at least smart enough to know that. He knows that this is not something that he could ever have accomplished on his own merit, but for him, he can blame it on the white establishment, and racism, and all of that, rather than his own personal lack of anything. In reality, he knows that these people –own—him, and so hates them for that as well, but at the same time, he’s using them, to accomplish something that would be other impossible for him. He could do the whole nation a favor by simply putting a gun to his head, but these types never do. Such is the tragedy. I’ve recommended a book on this thread that I thought was excellent in putting this is context – particularly to what I’ve experienced first hand, though there may be other’s that do a better job. You may have read it, • Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas. And, I know there have been other books published since, but that really told me all I needed to understand, about how Clarence Thomas came to be. So, it’s worth the read if you haven’t already. Still doesn’t completely answer your question, so we’re still stuck with a less than satisfactory characterization as an Uncle Tom, which doesn’t put him in the house or the field in any clear cut criteria. Does dirty bastard/mean spirited SOB/bitter racist/misogynist pervert, work better? (that’s my milder suggestion. All others are unprintable)
By rage, October 8, 2007 at 3:35 pm # ....."Constantly beaten down, the field slave knew that the master did not look out for his interests. But given limited privileges, the house slave couldn’t distinguish between his own interests and those of the master....” So, Cyrena and Ernest Canning, which is Clarence Thomas? He’s too unattractive a dullard to be a house n!&&@, yet socially unsuited to field work. He was a Yale c-Student who is doing little in any direction to show himself judicial, lining him up to be staked wide for the whip for squandering precious resources and opportunities. Though he has yet to convincingly distinguish between his own interests and massah’s, his tome makes it obvious that he holds massah in the same hateful contempt in which he holds African slaves. So, which is he, field or house?
By cyrena, October 8, 2007 at 11:01 am # #105338 by Ernest Canning ....."Constantly beaten down, the field slave knew that the master did not look out for his interests. But given limited privileges, the house slave couldn’t distinguish between his own interests and those of the master....” Ernest, You and Malcom X put it so very, very well. Guess I don’t have to say which one I’ve been. The field has it’s advantages, eh? Call it a blessing in disguise. (yeah...very ‘good’ disguise, but still a blessing once we recognize it) Thanks. I do love Justice Thurgood. His memory keeps me motivated in the fields.
By John Hanks, October 6, 2007 at 4:10 pm # If we can do anything, it has to be outside of the box (way outside of the box). The filth who run this country have the system almost totally gamed, and that includes the constitution which has been totally bought and paid for by money.
By IBrakeForTrees, October 6, 2007 at 11:07 am # So… what would it take to impeach him?
By Socdolager, October 5, 2007 at 10:45 pm # Thomas was an in-your-face-nomination by GHW Bush, to replace the legendary Thurgood Marshall. Marshall was a lawyer who risked his life to argue for civil rights in the South, one of the attorneys on Brown v. Board of Education, probably the most important decision of the 20th century Supreme Court. He was the first black on the Court and he had earned it. Thomas was in law school when Roe v. Wade was decided; I was too, and that opinion was discussed extensively in law school classes at the time. Yet, Thomas swore under oath he had no opinion on it and had basically never given it any thought. Thomas blasts liberal judges and their opinions, esp. of the Warren Court of the 1960’s. That court decided Loving v. Virginia, where activist judges, in a denial of claims of states’ rights, overturned a law preventing black/white marriages. Loving was a black man living in Virginia who wanted to marry a white woman, and the Court decided he could. Thomas is a black man living in Virginia married to a white woman. Would he have voted with Warren and the other liberals if he had been on the Court in the ‘60s, or would he have voted in favor of Virginia’s “state’s rights?” Sadly, the answer is we don’t know, because he is so rigidly conservative and believes, like Scalia, that we should interpret the Constitution as if this were still the 1780’s. Hey, the Constitution is racist (due to compromises made with Southerners) in that it recognized slavery and counted slaves as 3/5 of a person for elctions. But we liberals insist that the document must be interpreted in our current modern context.
By www.nazilieskill.us, October 5, 2007 at 8:30 pm # I never knew that Thomas was married to GHW Bush’s niece. Here we go with the cronyism and the crime family again. (If it is true). If Thomas did harass Anita Hill (and her testimony was corroborated) then he abused his power. I always assume the worst with most people. Did Thomas harass Anita Hill? (Yes) Was she involved in a conspiracy to use that knowledge to keep him off the court? (Yes)
By Stanley, October 5, 2007 at 12:26 pm # Thomas’ claim to having been lynched makes no sense -unless, of course, he himself believes that blacks should be treated differently from whites. Had he and Anita Hill been white, the proceedings would have transpired exactly as they did. Members of Congress were concerned that he not only was opposed to Roe v Wade (about which he said he had no opinion!) but that he was a serial belittler of women. It was never a racial issues - until Thomas himself made it one. It’s passing strange that he wants to be treated without regard to his color - until it is to his advantage to claim that he isn’t!!
By Ron Kendricks, October 5, 2007 at 12:01 pm # I was a 20 year old white Mississippi Freedom Fighter when I first encountered Clarence Thomas.
By rage, October 5, 2007 at 9:01 am # Slappy needs to get over the reality that he has never mattered to America. The only reason he was considered for appointment by Bush41 was to issue an affront to African America for demanding Justice Thurgood Marshall be replaced with another African American justice. Slappy was allegedly the best Bush41 could pull off on such short notice, with his Presidency in the dumptster. The progressive United States of America has subsequently dismissed this greivous numbskull as a useless tool of right-winged conservative repression. African America still fails to see him as Black or the epitome of justice. The world sits wondering what purpose he serves, since Slappy has yet to weigh in on a single issue. All he’s done is sulk and moan about how tough it has been for him to be Clarence Thomas day in and day out. Slappy could have saved himself this aggravation by graciously bowing out and leaving Poppy the agony of having Congress shoot down choice after choice until Big Dog took oath. Face it, the more of Slappy Black folks saw, the less we liked or trusted him. We knew this slave-mental colored man was no Thurgood Marshall, but DAAAMN!!!!! Even affluent negro Republicans failed to gingerly identify with Slappy. Pissed by the black repulsion, Slappy bitterly became recalcitrant and defiant. He stubbornly dug in then, just because no one wanted him where he felt he was destined to be. Slappy became ever more determined to show us all, even when it meant serving with the silenced voice burdened with everyone’s opinion but his own. Slappy meant to be on that bench, whether he was credible as a real Justice or not. This whining heel has yet to actually show himself worthily judicial on the big bench. Slappy has either voted to not rock the boat or abstained. He has no voice, no visibility, no original thoughts, and has done nothing notable to move the Country forward a single inch. Slappy is just where Poppy hoped he’d wind up, black on the back row and useless, whining about how he has been wronged. So, screw this arrogant churlish crank and Rupert Murdock, too, for this ridiculous assinine tome. America still doesn’t give a damn about Slappy, the right wing used numbskull whose petulent griping needs to be abruptly shushed. With a Justice Department employment record of on-the-job sexual harrassment, Slappy would do well not to draw any more attention to himself than what is absolutely necessary to quietly confirm he’s still breathing.
By sns, October 5, 2007 at 8:07 am # middle of class huh......i wonder if his IQ is below average....to write such a self-incriminating and bitter book. now i don’t mind a once immoral man who has learned from his misdeeds and has become just—after all, the best way to learn is from ugly experience. But it is clear that he has not learned much, that his attitude is just as despicable as it has always been…
By JimM72, October 4, 2007 at 7:06 pm # I hate name calling, but Thomas haS BEEN, is, and always will be a facist pile of garbage.
By J. C. Jimenez, October 4, 2007 at 6:13 pm # For want of a discerning jury, the senate confirmation committee, we are now saddled with an addeled megalomaniac who claims to be the supreme leader and whose actions are destroying the constitution and plunging the world into unceasing strife and death. If only that those who judged I. Thomas would have been like those that judged C. Thomas.
By John Hanks, October 4, 2007 at 11:01 am # Right-wing conservatives always take it personally when they aren’t allowed to bully people at will. They usually think they are betrayed as well. Hitler, Stalin, Bush, J.F.K., and many others were stuck in the same 5th grade mentality.
By FrostedFlakes, October 4, 2007 at 7:40 am # Why does no one ever mention the fact that he is married to the cousin of G.H.W. Bush. It makes you wonder.
By mark k, October 4, 2007 at 6:18 am # Shame on you all. Can’t you see, he’s been the victim of discrimination? When will there be justice for this Yale Law School grad with an undergraduate degree from Holy Cross, earning $196k/year, sitting for life on the highest court in the land, who just pocketed $1.5 million thru his book deal? I guess the “high tech lynching” continues.
By Thomas Billis, October 4, 2007 at 5:15 am # That is the system.The Comgress buying that high tech lynching stuff nominated a moron to the supreme court.How you could find a black man so detached from reality and who is probably the illegitimate son of Antonin Scalia is amazing.Instead of trying to rectify the situation where a blck man graduates from Yale and cannot get a job he rules to make it so it will always be that way.Confirming a nominee who wishes he was white and turns his back on the minority community is such a cruel joke on those underepresented minorities.Color is not what makes you black.
By Duris Maxwell, LL.B, October 4, 2007 at 3:43 am # Clarence Thomas has done all of us a great service—not that he had this particular one in mind. He has defined the principle that it is not always what happens to us that shapes our lives, but the choices we make in response. Many can still hear their grandparents uttering that warning. Yet given that Thomas tells us that he is his grandfather’s son, it seems fair to wonder how he missed this vital lesson. The success that Clarence Thomas has achieved speaks to another principle as well. Namely, that the success of some people can define what is wrong with something more than what is right with it. For him to have such power with hands rendered so “unclean” by the toxic nature of his general outlook is simply horrifying. He is about the last person I would ever want making a decision about me or anyone I cared about. Even if he finds his way to an appropriate decision, that toxic cloud over his heart and mind is never far away—perhaps even informing what appears probative and what does not. Where does that toxic cloud end and the real Clarence Thomas begin? True reforming of the appointment process for the Supreme Court may one day “thank” Clarence Thomas. But again, not in a way that he had in mind. Add Your Comment |
|
Newsroom Carnage Continues at The Washington Post
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|Comment Policy
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article