Part I of II reply to#105586 by rage

•  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
Ah rage…

You see what you’re doing here…you’re forcing me to think/flesh this through with more than the simple rhetoric that can be generally applied, since he does fall into a ‘unique’ sort of category, (at least for an Historian/Legal Scholar/Sociologist, and on and on) I could use a few ‘terms/concepts/names that wouldn’t ‘completely’ satisfy all components, like “Uncle Tom” or “internal racist” or a few others. But those wouldn’t cover the question that you’ve posed…Which is he… house or field? You’re so right, he doesn’t have (all) the common characteristics of either, (at least by the example that Ernest and I were using). In other words, he’s not likely to have the mentality that would suggest to the massah, that “WE be sick”? OR, he might ‘speak it’ but it wouldn’t be his real mentality, since he obviously hates white people just as much as he hates the black race (his own).

So, that’s why the closest I guess I can come, would be the Uncle Tom characterization. Read that as him not being either/or but more like the black plantation foreman, or trustee in the jail house. The ‘masters’ of old, running by his cabin to chase runaway slaves, and the “Tom” offering the information, (without solicitation)….they went ‘that a-way”.. It’s about as close as I can come.

But, here are my more detailed thoughts on how/who/why/what he is…as best I can come up with, based on what I’ve already read or ‘investigated’ about him. I ‘suspect’ and only from the –title- of his book, (about his granddaddy) that there may in fact be some ‘insight’ to it all right there. But, I don’t know if or when I’d ever get around to combing through it myself, because I’m pretty sure I couldn’t stomach it. (I can’t even stand to look at the dude, and not just because he’s incredibly ugly from a cosmetic sense, because I don’t generally make assessments of people on those basis, but just because, well he’s SO damn UGLY!) Seriously…he is one ugly man.

But, I said that to say that I believe the hatred and bitterness may be almost genetic in a psychological sense. I think he epitomizes his own grandfather’s ideology, from the moment that his grandfather snatched him from his own mother, whom he felt was inadequate, and basically worthless as a human being, as he (granddaddy) apparently felt about all women – particularly of his own race. He didn’t take over the care and education of Clarence’s sisters, but only Clarence…he being the only boy, if I remember correctly.

It’s a special category that applies to more than a few black men from the south, (and elsewhere) for the time period that we’re talking about, and they still exist, as does Clarence himself. They just don’t generally get to be SC Justices. It’s the (I hate to say ‘typical’ but it almost is) mentality of black male chauvinism and misogynist mentality. They project onto women, the same worthlessness that they feel is projected onto them, by the dominant white society. Oddly enough, these ‘types’ quite often find themselves hooked up with white women, for whom they are generally willing to do just about anything. (I know a bunch of these types).

TBC

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.
-Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson are the authors. I’m guessing sometime around 1990-1991 give or take. I don’t have it in front of me, and I didn’t take the time to look it up.

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)

Rage, Clarence bought his way into the house by betraying the guys in the field.  Now he thinks “he be master.”

we don’t have one “elected official”[lol]that doesn’t deserve to burn in the pits of hell. same goes for all the political appointees.

#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.

Cyrena, aside from Thurgood Marshall’s vastly superior intellect when measured against that of Clarence Thomas (of, for that matter, when measured against most of us given that Thurgood Marshall was one of the Supreme Court’s intellectual giants) the difference was expounded upon by Malcolm X as being the difference between the field slave and the house slave.  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.  As Malcolm put it in an especially memorable address, “If the master got sick, the house slave would not say, ‘Master, you is sick.’  Instead, the house slave would say, ‘Master, we be sick.’”

#105093 by Socdolager

Thanks Socdolager,

Great piece. I only wanted to add what I’ll always remember from what Justice Marshall had to say about his planned “replacement”...

In effect, he (Justice Marshall) said of Clarence, that he was: “The WRONG kind of Negro”. There it is. I sometimes wonder if the appointment might have sent my hero (Justice Marshall) to an earlier grave then it had to be. Of course I’ll never know.

Thanks for the comparison to the Loving Case. It sure is a good one, eh?

What is overlooked both by this article and past comments is that Clarence Thomas is but a part of a 40 year hard-right plot to pack the court with ideologues.  Justice Thomas is one of four Federalist Socienty Supreme Court Justices who now sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.  The others are Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and John Roberts.

The Federalist Society was founded by Robert Bork and is funded by hard-right billionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife.  It advances radical constitutional theories.  These include overturning scores of Supreme Court precedents going back 70 years affecting privacy, equal opportunity, the environment, religious liberty, reproductive rights; turning the clock back to the days of the Gilded Age when the Court struck down laws regulating child labor, wages and hours laws as well as public health through the long-discredited doctrine of substantive due process, and, most importantly, a commitment to the doctrine of a lawless “Unitary Executive.”

“Unitary Executive” is not merely radical but subversive.  Every U.S. President, based on the mandatory language of Article II of the US Constitution, takes a solemn oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.  Then Ass. AG Wm. Renhquist noted in 1969, “It is in our view extremely difficult to formulate a constitutional theory to justify a refusal by the President to comply with a Congressional directive….The execution of any law is, by definition, an executive function, and it seems an anomalous proposition that because the Executive Branch is bound to execute the laws, it is free to decline to execute them.”

Yet that is precisely what “Unitary Executive” theory advances.  It envisions a dictatorial executive, unchecked by the legislative branch.  It is the theory by which the Bush administration has attached more than 1000 presidential signing statements and which is responsible for the abominable torture memos.  The VP’s chief of Staff David Addington, who labels this the “New Paradigm,” contends that a President as Commander-in-Chief can disregard all previously known legal boundaries if national security demands it.

A dissent penned by Thomas in the Hamdi case reveals that “Unitary Executive” theory does not merely impinge upon the authority of Congress.  Thomas contends that the Constitution provides the President with the “primary responsibility…to protect the national security” and that “judicial intererence in these domains destroys the purpose of vesting primary responsibility in the unitary Executive.”  Despite a majority opinion to the contrary in both Hamdi and Hamdan, AG Alberto Gonzales continued to assert that federal judges have no authority to oversee executive actions in matters of national security.

At the time of the Thomas nomination, Sen. Kennedy observed:  “If we confirm a nominee who has not demonstrated a commitment to core constitutional values, we jeopardize our rights as individuals and the future of our nation.  We cannot undo such a mistake at the next election or even in the next generation.”  That is what was really at stake during the Thomas nomination, and now we are but one Federalist Society appointment away from ending the rule of law as we know it.

Part I
#105069 by Ga on 10/05 at 7:33 pm

Ga…you’ve really missed the mark. TOTALLY!! And in the process, you’ve shown your OWN racism, and bias, which seems extremely close to the mentality of Clarence himself…a bigoted, bitter, angry, misogynist, who uses his RACE –as a black person- to whine about why he has been targeted, NOT because he’s black, but because he is INCAPALE of separating his perception of “persecution” at the hands of white people, (which is certainly real to an extent I’m sure, except that he’s not the only black, white, purple or green man/woman to have been subjected to such ‘lynchings’ or other real or perceived persecutions.)

So, I’m gonna call you out on this, because it’s highly offensive, just as Clarence himself is. And lemme tell ya up front, it’s CLARENCE playing the “race card” not us, and it’s about politics, and not the law. Therein lies the crime. As a judge, he is supposed to be obligated to one thing only, and that is the law. Not a political party or political ‘ideology’. Just the law.

•  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?

Your answer. “Yes, if he can seperate his personal life from his judicial life.”

I say…HE CANNOT! He has never been capable of this, which is why he’s among the worst Justices to ever hold the seat. He has never been able to do this. His bitterness and anger (at having been exposed for the slime ball that he is) clouds every single judicial decision that he makes. He cannot be impartial, based on the law. Clarence has a mediocre legal mind, and he cannot…is unable, to formulate a professional opinion –on his own-. And, that’s why he was nominated to begin with; to promote the radical right agenda. In reality, he was USED by the political right, to promote their agenda, and that’s what he continues to do. So, maybe THAT’S why he’s so pissed. He knows it.

•  How many here have reviewed Justice Thomas’ opinions?

I HAVE!! I’ve read most. And, that’s been far easier for me than the other justices of the past and present, because….HE HASN’T WRITTEN THAT MANY!!! Not even CLOSE to other justices of the past and present. Nor has he written, (to my knowledge, so you can correct me with dates, and cases if I’m wrong) any MAJORITY opinions. His are rarely anything more than a concurring or dissenting opinion, and always based on the political agenda of the radical right, (the Bushies) and NOT –the law-
So Ga…YOU read his opinions, and get back to me on that. It won’t take you long.

Part II response to Ga 105069
•  How much of his anger was about how he was treated?

Think about this question, Ga. How much of his anger was about how he was “treated”? Apparently – A LOT!! So, is this a person qualified to sit in judgment on the highest court of the land? Is ANY person who displays such anger at the injustices –real or perceived- directed at him ‘personally’, really inclined to AVOID the carry- over in his judicial decisions? He was ANGRY and BITTER at the “way HE was ‘treated’” as you say. I say he was angry and bitter at being exposed for what he IS. But even if it was a genuine ‘high tech lynching’, if he could display such bitterness so openly, do you not believe that makes him a very poor candidate for such a job, EVEN if he actually KNEW the law? (which he does not)? If it’s ALL ABOUT HIM, ALL of the TIME, how is he going to separate that from his judicial opinions? He’s still whining about it all these years later.

•  No person here can say that his race had no influence on his detractors. Race did have its role. That cannot be denied. How much so? It will take a person with more intelligence than I to determine.
•  The media constantly brings up the “Anita Hill” shit everytime they interview Justice Thomas!

You got this part right Ga, and while I’m no genius, it’s apparent that I’m at least ‘more intelligent’ than you. So, here’s the answer. For many ignorant white people of all colors) his ‘race’ did have a factor. They are stupid, shallow, and have no reference for anything other than the color of a persons skin. They are the same types who automatically assume that an attractive woman,(of any color) cannot have any brains or “intelligence”. Or if she does, then she must not be ‘feminine”. You are one of those types. You spoke yourself loud and clear with the “Anita Hill Shit” statement. Ever think about the repercussions of that event FOR HER? Of course not. You wouldn’t. But you can read an earlier post where I brought this up…in detail.

For his GENUINE detractors – those who only base their opinions on the character, knowledge, and integrity of the person, RACE was NOT a factor. I’m black, and my own judgment was based on his RECORD – his BEHAVIORS – NOT because he was black like the my own parents/kids/siblings. Rather, he is an example of the WORST they could be, as upstanding members of the black/human race.

•  The media constantly brings up race issues everytime they interview Justice Thomas!

You may have a point here; I can’t confirm it myself, because I never watch “interviews” of/with/for Clarence Thomas. He’s extremely difficult to look at, or listen to, especially since he’s always whining about how he “was treated”, like it’s somehow different than anything that any other person runs into in the course of a lifetime, especially (but not only) because they’re black or any other minority in America.

•  Why do they not interview him for his judicial views and opinions? The 60 Minutes interview, for example, was disgusting.

I already answered this. He doesn’t HAVE any. (judicial views or opinions. They’re all politically pre-programmed to suit the political agenda of the radical right..no connection to the Law)

•  The media is at fault here.

I agree with this. The media is at fault, because the media (overall – the mainstream media that is) has failed us terribly over the past 7 or 8 years, in acting as the independent -4th branch- that they should be. They have been nothing more than a propaganda machine for the Thugs in power.

Another question for you might be…WHY the hell did he allow himself to be “interviewed”? He normally hides in the shadows. And, sitting Justices, (as a matter of ethics) rarely give these sorts of interviews. So, why is he always prancing all over the media? Did the media FORCE him to give these interviews?

ga, Clarence Thomas is a perjurer, he is mean spirited and as dispicable as George Bush or Dick Cheney.  Stop playing the race card to try to evade what the man stands for and what he has done.

Clarence Thomas is a travesty to all good men and women who fight for justice of the oppressed and powerless, no matter what their color.

If it is not about color, then why are you trashing Thomas? Becuase he is black and not acting black?

This is the problem: too many people think that black people have to be “black people” and that white people will always be “white people.”

All that just about every commentator here has shown is that race is (still) behind all criticism of Thomas. Black people can be good or bad, smart or dumb, tall or short, just as white people. Why should Thomas act any particular way just because he is black?

Can you not fathom that one day a black person can be just like a white person? And vice versa?

I have heard this about Obama: that he is not “black enough.” Well, guess what? Obama is mixed race. Should’nt he therefore be “half white” and “half black?” But could it not be that he is what he is more than anything else!

You, YOU!, have to STOP this “race must be race” crap or we will never get past it.

Marie Cocco:
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?

Yes, if he can seperate his personal life from his judicial life.

How many here have reviewed Justice Thomas’ opinions?

I, watching his confirmation hearings, initially thought that the anger that he displayed meant that he should not have been confirmed, but…

How much of his anger was about how he was treated?

His treatment could have been a “high-tech lynching” just as he said. That it was perceived as that by him is obvious.

No person here can say that his race had no influence on his detractors. Race did have its role. That cannot be denied. How much so? It will take a person with more intelligence than I to determine.

But do not forget this:

The media constantly brings up the “Anita Hill” shit everytime they interview Justice Thomas!

The media constantly brings up race issues everytime they interview Justice Thomas!

Why do they not interview him for his judicial views and opinions? The 60 Minutes interview, for example, was disgusting.

The media is at fault here.

As I have said before, this position should not be life-long.  We need term limits, especially on the Supreme Court.  One term, 10 years.  Mostly we need journalists with integrity.  This man’s relationship to GHWB should have been made public by some good reporting.  I won’t even go into what I think about that hearing.  Once again, the Dems bent over for a Bush, what a joke….

#104599 by ocjim

OCJIM,

Your piece is excellent as well! Thanks for sharing it, since it adds some additional background that some may not be old enough to know, and there’s only so much space in one article. I too read the piece from Anita Hill in the NYT. More than anything though, I remember watching those hearings…in a break room at work.

So, that why I got to become ‘engaged’ –again- when I read his clarence’s words, again, about it…

•  Indeed, his response in the full Senate hearing in 1991 was “This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. It is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks…”

Remembering those hearings, and remembering the horrific discomfort that I felt –FOR HER- just frustrates me all over again. In the nutshell, this speaks volumes about “HIM”. It was ALL about HIM, and ONLY about HIM. The incredible humiliation, and all the rest –FOR HER- doesn’t even enter his vision. The shame that I felt, sitting among my ALL WHITE co-workers, (mostly men) who were so easily convinced, within nothing flat, that it was SHE who was the bad girl, and making all of this up…for whatever the reason, is something that HE or THEY would do. (I know his type…have been through it myself, maybe that’s why I felt the extra discomfort).

I don’t think that anyone (at least at the time) paid the slightest bit of attention to the fact that Anita Hill did not “voluntarily go to the ‘authorities’” to report him for these deeds of misconduct, after she found out that he was to be nominated, or even after he WAS nominated. Rather, those PTB came to HER, as what was part of the ROUTINE confirmation process, in checking him out. It’s what they DO.

And, at the time, (since we are talking 16 years ago) she was reluctant, because of the exceedingly private person that she is. WHO in the world would put themselves though that sort of humiliation –on the national record- just for some silly spite?

No, she had to consider that this was going to be an extremely difficult thing for her to do, and she did it anyway, probably never knowing just how awful it would be, and how she would be so horrifically smeared. (I could have told her, but then…like her, my oath to the profession and the constitution would have forced me to do it as well…it was in fact her duty). And, she has maintained her principals and integrity of character better than any other person I’ve known in recent history.  Still, long ago as that was…I just get pissed off all over again, reading these words from him. It was all about HIM. HE was a victim of the “lynching mob” not HER.

You mentioned this in your take from the interview:

•  But at that point Kroft was talking about Thomas’s grandfather, whom Thomas obviously deeply respected.

My own thoughts, (but only after reading the book, “Strange Justice”) was that he was far more AFRAID of his grandfather than anything else. Sometimes that breeds “respect”, if ya know what I mean. At least that’s what I got from the book. His granddaddy sounded like the kind of person I would have run the hell away from. (I’ve known others like him).

And, at the time of his confirmation, Clarence had little to know experience in the law. He did no good in his position at the EEOC, (which continues to be even more dysfunctional than it was then…being all about partisan politics as much now as ever, at least in the South, or the Southwest – Texas is the worst) and since his confirmation, you’ll note that he has written few –iif any- of the majority opinions on any case. He usually just throws his in as consenting or not, depending on what the radical political agenda is.

Anyway, I highly recommend that book, for anyone who has time. Can’t remember to names of the two female authors, but it is an excellent piece of work.

Above all, he accuses feminism and abortion rights advocates concerned with Roe V. Wade with promoting the attack on him by Anita Hill.  He claims to be just an honest conservative acting upon the law as provided in the Constitution.
It is a good story.  However, what about the presidential election of 2000, the critical Florida balloting was seriously marred by tactics which kept over 200,000 African Americans from voting? (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, June 8, 2001)
For Clarence Thomas to make his case as a victim of racism, you have to accept his claim that there was a conspiracy against him because he was independent and Black.  Well, no.  There was efforts against him because well informed people assumed that he would vote to establish conservative power – such as the tainted election of a president in 2000- without respect for democracy or the constitution.  We should not forget this action by Clarence Thomas – and four other justices- which gave us George Bush as President and all that has followed it.

#104618 by FrostedFlakes on 10/04 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.
====================
FF,

I DIDN’T KNOW this!!! I knew that his wife was an unattactive white woman, (I’ve seen photos) but I didn’t know she was the cousin of GHW. Now, that explains it.

Also, his perversions have been documented in a book entitled “Strange Justice”. And, his rage, bitterness at his “lot” are examined in the same book, from a far different perspective than what he apparently puts out in his own.

Matter of fact, from that book, we get an idea that it was Granddaddy that was even more sinister than he. That may be where he gets it from.

And, sad as it is to say, there are other black folks just like him…even young ones. I call it self-hate. These kind of black folks hate other “minorities” - including black folks, more than the average white person does.

The fancy word is “internalized racism”. I just call him EVIL.

Writing from his lofty perch on the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas’s renewal of the smear campaign the hard-right directed at Anita Hill in the wake of her convincing sworn testimony represents the epitomy of chutzpah.  (Loosely defined, chutzpah is often considered in the context of the little boy who murders his parents and then asks the court for mercy because he’s an orphan.)

During the first stage of his confirmation hearing Thomas claimed he had never expressed an opinion about Roe v. Wade even in private nor had he ever formed a personal opinion on the case during the 18 year period between the date it was handed down and his confirmation hearings.  If the insider account furnished by David Brock in “Blinded by the Right” is even close to being accurate, Justice Thomas’s claim that he had never formulated an opinion about Roe was a bald-faced lie. 

Brock contends that Thomas was selected by Geo. H. W. Bush precisely because he could be counted as a vote to overturn Roe.  “Thomas had been coached by the federalist Society confirmation team to give the Judiciary Committee answers to questions that may have been technically true but deliverately misleading.”  In light of Roe’s importance, Thomas’s claim that he had never formulated an opinion about Roe could be “technically true” only if he had never studied constitutional law and had spent the preceding eighteen years on a deserted island.

Brock aptly describes the Federalist Society (to which Thomas belongs) as a “counterrevolution in law, which aimed to roll back decades of liberal jursiprudence in areas such a civil rights, property rights, due process…and reproductive freedom.”  He asserts that the selection of Thomas was part of “a cynical calculation.  The only way to slide a hard-right conservative through the senate was to choose a ‘black Bork,’ driving a wedge through the civil rights community….”

Anita Hill, under oath, and in graphic detail provided a discription of unwanted and unsolicited sexual advances that included “times, and dates, and circumstances, and…direct quotes from Thomas.”  She also furnished the committee with “detailed accounts of contemporaneous conversations she had had about Thomas’s behavior with others,” including California Workers’ Compensation Judge Susan Hoershner, whose testimony verified Hill’s account.  When Hill’s initial cross-examination only produced more persuasive detail, “the White House decided to stop the senators’ questioning…”  This gave the hard-right the time needed to viciously smear Hill both inside and outside the Senate chamber.  Brock would know.  Although he now admits he believed Hill, this did not stop him from assembling vicious rumor and innuendo, trashing her in “The Real Anita Hill” where Brock referred to her as “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.”

What nerve!  Clarence Thomas should be impeached for lying under oath at his confirmation hearing.  Instead, he publishes a book!

Yuck.

Great piece Marie. Your observations about a rage-filled man of any color cannot rule objectively on anything. He is not just compromised by the $1.5 million he received from Rupert but also by his narcissistic focus on his imagined persecution.
I saw Thomas interviewed by Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes and my initial reaction was positive, seeing a somewhat engaging, rather personable man who seemed bright and well-spoken. But at that point Kroft was talking about Thomas’s grandfather, whom Thomas obviously deeply respected.

A not too subtle vein of bitterness and resentment followed when Kroft got to more contentious questions like Anita Hill’s charges of sexual harassment and the Senate’s probing questions about those charges. Indeed, his response in the full Senate hearing in 1991 was “This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. It is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks…”

Though Thomas was finally confirmed, he told Kroft that he felt no sense of victory. It was no game to win. It was about our Constitution and our country, he said.

It may well be that Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas both were wounded souls, especially after the Senate Confirmation hearings in 1991. We will probably never know the truth, though a well-spoken response by Anita Hill appeared in the New York Times a few days ago with claims she has affirming witnesses. Just the same, Thomas has been mindlessly skewered on liberal blogs, questioning his intelligence and motives.

But his character isn’t the point, Marie pointed out the issue: someone that damaged and bitter shouldn’t sit in judgment regarding cases that impact millions.

It is most likely true that he would not be on the Supreme Court if he were not almost radically conservative and black. Both are credentials that caught the attention of George H. W. Bush, who searched for a strict constructionist, a quality that would help ingratiate his conservative base. In addition, the fact that Thomas is black was probably calculated to choke off opposition from Democrats in the Senate.

One could easily guess that Clarence Thomas, who took advantage of affirmative action programs, had a hard go as a black minority at Yale. Even with graduating in the middle of his class, not many employment opportunities opened up for him except from a Missouri state Republican Attorney General, John Danforth, whom he later followed to Washington DC. Soon after this Thomas switched party allegiance, shedding what he called a radical liberal bent for a conservative leaning. Campaigning for Ronald Reagan, Thomas soon moved to the other extreme, a radical conservative.

Bush Senior got additional mileage from his appointment of Thomas, for Thomas, along with Reagan appointees—Sandra Day O’Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony M. Kennedy—appointed Bush Junior to the presidency in 2000.

Nine angry men and woman or should I say one angry man.

THE ACTIONS AND THE MORALS OF A PERSON SITTING IN JUDGEMENT ON HIS OR HER PEERS-IN A POSITION OF POWER AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE LAW-SHOULD BE EXEMPLARY. THAT MAN[WHO-BY THE WAY-IS ONE OF THE “FACES” THE WORLD SEES OF AMERICA]SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN LEFT TO FILL THAT POSITION AFTER THAT SCANDAL.HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED AND STRIPPED OF EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH LAW…JUST LIKE THEY DID TO THAT ATTORNEY IN THE “DUKE’ SITUATION.I’M SURE THAT WORDS SUCH AS “PREJUDICE” “BIGOTRY” “OPPRESSION” “ACLU” and “AFFIRMATIVE ACTION” KEPT THIS JUDGE IN HIS POSITION OF POWER…TALK ABOUT “DOUBLE STANDARDS”!!!