Another fine specimen from the party of tolerance and diversity:
Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the Nevada Democrat minced no words when asked about Thomas being a possible replacement for Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
“I think that he (Thomas) has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court,” Reid said. “I think that his opinions are poorly written. I just don’t think that he’s done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.”
Colin, Condi, Clarence- the message is clear. Leave the plantation, and the Democrats are going to be pissed.
space
What a sad, pathetic joke.
Do you actually think Democrats are going to say that Thomas’ opinions are well reasoned? They are shaped by a pseudo-libertarian, at times textualist, natural rights view that Democrats don’t agree with. If they thought they made sense, they’d be Republicans.
But, of course, you can’t criticize Thomas or you are a racist. Go it. Start calling the party the GOPC.
BTW, are Republicans anti-semites if they think that Ginsberg’s opinions are “poorly reasoned”? (Hint: the answer is “no”)
Kimmitt
Wow, we really can’t win at all; a Democrat offers a completely aracial assessment of Justice Thomas’s abilities (with which I agree, for the record; the opinions of his that I’ve read really are not well written), and we are accused of racism.
Basically, what this post is saying is that any African-American Republican should be completely immune to criticism. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.
CadillaqJaq
From Kimmitt: “Basically, what this post is saying is that any African-American Republican should be completely immune to criticism.”
On the other hand, what Kimmit posted sounds more like what we’d expect to hear from Julian Bond, Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton.
I’m curious what of Clarence Thomas’s legal opinions Kimmitt has read lately. I’d put them up against any of the best writings we see around here.
Kimmitt
Lately? Not much. I haven’t had need to read many opinions since Bush v. Gore (in which Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion is just terrible).
John Cole
It should never have gotten to Bush v. Gore. What Kimmitt and Democrats never mention is the horrible decisions at the state level that were so blatant they forced the hand of the US Supreme Court.
And the idea that THomas has poorly reasoned or poorly written opinions is absurd. I bet if put up ten snippets of opinions, you or Harry Reid couldn’t tell who wrote it- Scalia or Thomas or Bork. Thefact is the Democratic mythology has been that Thomas was elevated only becauseof his race and that he is just a yes man for Scalia. Reid knows he can’t get away with calling Scalia stupid, so he tried it on Thomas. And got caught.
S.W. Anderson
Seb. Reid isn’t criticizing Thomas because of his race, obviously.
Not long ago people on the right regularly claimed, with sneering disdain, that liberals/Democrats would accept anything, no matter how bad, from any member of a minority group out of a mindless compulsion to not be considered racist.
Looks as though it’s time for the sneering disdain to start flowing in the other direction.
jcw
“I bet if put up ten snippets of opinions, you or Harry Reid couldn’t tell who wrote it- Scalia or Thomas or Bork.”
put up or shut up, big mouth.
Kimmitt
I bet if put up ten snippets of opinions, you or Harry Reid couldn’t tell who wrote it- Scalia or Thomas or Bork.
I actually disagree — Scalia’s opinions tend to be very recognizable in particular.
I have no experience with Judge Bork’s jurisprudence, so his style would not be obvious to me.
PoliArt
What everyone seems to be missing, and proof that the comments are racist, is that in the same interview Reid praised the mind of Justice Scalia.
The point is that when insulting a minority Republican the comments divert to the stupidity of the minority Republican. On the other hand, a white Republican just has bad ideas.
This is just one example that can be seen throughout the liberal mindset. Any minority that breaks from the group think must be stupidt. That is racist, no way around it.
Kimmitt
is that in the same interview Reid praised the mind of Justice Scalia.
Well, Scalia is fricking brilliant, even if I find his opinions to be absurd. Which is what Senator Reid said in the interview.
space
Anyone who thinks Scalia’s and Thomas’ opinions are indistinguishable abviously doesn’t read too many opinions (i.e. John Cole). Certainly anyone who would suggest that the Senate Minority Leader can’t tell the difference is a fool.
Meanwhile, John Cole, expert on Florida election law that he is, deigns to announce that the Florida Supreme Court’s interpretation of Florida Law was so flawed that it “forced the hand” of Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas.
Once their “hands were forced” they had no choice but to ignore the Constitution’s provisions for Presidential elections, contradict their own jurisprudential philosophies on the Equal Protection Clause and Federalism, divine the intent of the Florida Legislature to meet the optional safe harbor date even if votes had yet to be counted, and declare the state of Florida incapable of conducting a recount.
Wow. Brilliant. We may be in the presence of the next Supreme Court justice.
Ben
I agree with Kimmitt that to expect that Thomas, due to his race, cannot be critized, definately is an example of expecting less of him because of his race. Which I find wrong.
As it turned out, the host of the blog, and a few others, have tried to dodge the question, so I’ll spell it out:
Is it considered an example of the “soft bigotry of low expectations” to say that because a person is of a particular race, anyone who critizes that person is a racist?
BTW: “But,but others are doing it!” isn’t really helpful at answering the question, CadillaqJaq.
JohnO
The bigger point is that no follow up question was asked of Reid as to what opinions he thought were an “embarrassment” or “poorly written”. I agree, just because Thomas is a black Supreme Court justice doesn’t mean he can’t be criticized. That being said, point to SPECIFIC examples of what you think are “poorly written” opinions.
jerry
Dear John Cole, you are not worth my time. You are racist, you are a thug, you pander. You pimp.
Fuck Off and Die.
Kimmitt
I apologize; Thomas merely concurred in one of the opinions in Bush v. Gore. The opinion I found most disturbing recently was in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, in which he displays a terrifying indifference to the concept of the rule of law. Even Scalia didn’t go that far.
The Executive Branch, acting pursuant to the powers vested in the President by the Constitution and with explicit congressional approval, has determined that Yaser Hamdi is an enemy combatant and should be detained. This detention falls squarely within the Federal Government’s war powers, and we lack the expertise and capacity to second-guess that decision.
Geek, Esq.
More disingenuous wingut whining. Criticize his work for its content, and they raise blatantly false charges of racism faster than you can say “Al Sharpton.”
Thomas is mediocre. He NEVER participates in oral arguments–he just sits there playing Gameboy or whatever it is he does at such times.
Scalia is mostly wrong and frequently misguided, but he backs his positions up with a coherent approach.
Thomas’s opinion in US v. Hamdi reveal him to be easily the least impressive member of this court.
Kimmitt
Jerry — I’m pretty sure that you aren’t going to win a lot of friends that way, on either side of the aisle.
Or, to put it another way, aim that rhetoric at the Freepers or LGF, where it belongs.
jerry
Kimmitt, I am not trying to win any friends here tonight. Mr. Cole knows exactly the kind of propaganda he spun here, and knows why it is fallacious, and knows why it is odious.
I believe you are naive to think you can engage in a dialogue with him. He is trying to distract you and take your energies from where a real dialogue is possible.
Since Mr. Cole chooses to crap all over us, I will let him know that some of us will not stand for that.
jerry
He lies, and smears, and foments anger.
I see no difference between Cole’s rhetoric and that of the LGF or the FreeRepublic.
Except perhaps that Mr. Cole is smart enough to know what he is doing. That of course, makes his behavior worse.
This is not when you discuss the issue with someone, this is when you give them a timeout. Or worse.
slickvguy
Thomas’s critics have so much respect for Scalia’s intellect.
I wonder then, if Scalia – as brilliant as we all agree that he is – stated that Thomas was a great judge, would the critics bow to Scalia’s superior knowledge?
I doubt it.
It’s too friggin’ funny to see a bunch of jokers on the Internet pretending that they know something that they clearly do not.
None of you are fit to make these judgements. Ignorant fools.
And what are Reid’s qualifications to make these judgements? It’s one thing to disagree with the man, quite another to call Thomas an “embarrassment”. And if you put Thomas into that cetagory, there are a few other judges on the SCOTUS that belong there with him.
I hope Bush gives it to Thomas. Just to see the Left freak out! :D
harlan pepper
I hope Bush gives it to Thomas. Just to see the Left freak out! :D
Aggreed! Imagine Ted Rall’s reaction. Lawrence O’Donnell’s? Priceless!
HMS
I’ve read that Clarence Thomas speaks less than any other justice on the Supreme Court. Has that changed in the last few years?
Ted Barlow
Do we really become what we hate? Have you really become someone who thinks that it’s inherently racist to criticize a black person? There’s not one word where Reid talks about Thomas’s race (unsurprisingly).
I’m positive that your criticism of black Democrats is not motivated by racism. I think that your political opponents deserve the same goddamn benefit of the doubt. I expect this from Hannity, but not from you.
jerry
A short list of Reid’s qualifications become clear in the first two or three google hits for Harry Reid biography:
”
Education:
JD, George Washington University School of Law, 1964
BS, Utah State University, 1961
AS, Southern Utah State College, 1959.
Professional Experience:
Attorney, 1969-1982
Henderson City Attorney, 1964-1966
United States Capitol Police Officer, 1961-1964.
Political Experience:
Senator, United State Senate, 1986-present
Senate Minority Whip, 2002-present
Senate Majority Whip -2002
Representative, United States House of Representatives, 1982-1986
Candidate, Mayor of Las Vegas, 1975
Democratic Nominee, United States Senate, 1974
Nevada Lieutenant Governor, 1970-1974
Nevada State Assembly, 1968-1970.
Organizations:
Chair, Nevada Gaming Commission, 1977-1981
Chair, American Cancer Society
Nevada State Bar Association.”
Now what are your qualifications?
jerry
A short list of Reid’s qualifications become clear in the first two or three google hits for Harry Reid biography:
”
Education:
JD, George Washington University School of Law, 1964
BS, Utah State University, 1961
AS, Southern Utah State College, 1959.
Professional Experience:
Attorney, 1969-1982
Henderson City Attorney, 1964-1966
United States Capitol Police Officer, 1961-1964.
Political Experience:
Senator, United State Senate, 1986-present
Senate Minority Whip, 2002-present
Senate Majority Whip -2002
Representative, United States House of Representatives, 1982-1986
Candidate, Mayor of Las Vegas, 1975
Democratic Nominee, United States Senate, 1974
Nevada Lieutenant Governor, 1970-1974
Nevada State Assembly, 1968-1970.
Organizations:
Chair, Nevada Gaming Commission, 1977-1981
Chair, American Cancer Society
Nevada State Bar Association.”
Now what are your qualifications?
Kimmitt
I wonder then, if Scalia – as brilliant as we all agree that he is – stated that Thomas was a great judge, would the critics bow to Scalia’s superior knowledge?
No, just as we also do not bow to Scalia’s political view that all Cheif Executives enjoy divine sanction for their actions.
John cole
TEd-
Scalia’s and Thomas’s opinions are virtually identical, yet Scalia is a gnius and Thomas is dumb.
Has nothing to do with the left portraying Thomas as an affirmative action charity case in over his head for the past ten years.
About two years ago, I remember liberals calling Thomas stupid because he didn’t talk enough in session.
The fact of the matter is that what they hate about thomas is not that he is a conservative, and a arther articulate intelligent one at that. What they hate is that he is BLACK and CONSERVATIVE.
And he must be destroyed at all cost.
Kimmitt
Scalia’s and Thomas’s opinions are virtually identical, yet Scalia is a gnius and Thomas is dumb.
Well, no — you saw the post I made on Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, where their opinions differed significantly.
Also, has it occurred to you that both smart and dumb people might share a given set of opinions?
We continue to be angry that Bush 41 slammed a mediocre archconservative through Congress by cynically using his skin tone. But really, it’s the “mediocre archconservative” part that’s the issue.
jcw
talk big but don’t back it up with any facts. way to go, john. still waiting on those opinion posts, tough guy.
Ted Barlow
Really? Destroyed at all cost? The guy has a lifetime appointment. Criticism is not an attempt to (organ chord) destroy the man. Get back to me when he’s being impeached.
You didn’t start this yesterday. Surely you’ve caught on by now that every conservative gets attacked by liberals, regardless of skin color, just as every liberal gets attacked by conservatives. Not every attack is valid, but it’s bullshit to try to draw a halo around all minorities. It devalues the very serious charge of racism tremendously when it’s thrown around so casually.
Here’s a hypothetical case. There are two conservative justices on the court. We’ll call them “Eugene Volokh” and “John Cole”.
Justice Volokh came to the court after a brilliant career and frequently cited publications. He’s widely respected and admired for his intellect, even by detractors. On the bench, he continually peppers lawyers with insightful, challenging, sometimes crazy-sounding questions. He has a reputation, unlike most justices, for writing his own opinions instead of outlining them for clerks to write.
Justice Cole came to the court after a briefer career, perfectly respectable but not outstanding. He doesn’t have much of a reputation. On the bench, he’s most noteworthy for his lack of questions. He doesn’t share Volokh’s unusual reputation for writing his own opinions.
As mentioned, Justices Volokh and Cole are both conservatives, and they tend to vote the same way. From this, we can conclude that:
a) the only acceptable method of evaluating the Justices is by counting their yeas or nays
b) Volokh and Cole are equally as qualified for the position of Chief Justice
c) someone who doesn’t admire Volokh and Cole equally can only be motivated by bigotry
You could see through this in a second if it was Jesse Jackson or Kwesi Mfume. But if it’s a black conservative, you get in line to throw tomatoes.
Ricky
Ted,
There was an extra effort to take down Thomas. Moreso than Scalia.
For God’s sakes, they investigated what movies he may have rented while in college and portrayed the notion that saying “pubic hair” was unfitting for a USSC judge (my, what would be the reaction in the post-Monica world of the DNC?).
There are worse things said about conservative blacks than conservative whites. There have been magazine covers showing Thomas as a stepinfetchit, Oliver Willis calls them “handkerchief heads”, Thomas has been called a ‘sellout’ to his own people.
BTW, how funny does Josh Marshall hinting that Bill Frist was a racist because he requested unsharpened pencils, seem now?
Geek, Esq.
No one who has attended or taught law school in the past 20 years could make this idiotic charge.
Scalia’s opinions, articles, etc. are carefully studied and critiqued. More so than any other justice–O’Connor is the only one that comes close.
People do not study Clarence Thomas opinions.
Ben F
Two more things I’d like to throw out there.
When Scalia was appointed, the reason he didn’t face a great deal of opposition the way Thomas did had nothing to do with his race. It was most likely the fact that the Senate had just finished a somewhat contentious debate over whether or not to promote Rehnquist to chief justice. After that, Scalia’s appointment seemed less controversial in comparison. (also, I’m not sure which year this occured, but it may have been when the Republicans had a majority in the Senate).
Second, I’ll grant that in Lawrence v Texas, Clarence Thomas IMHO wrote a better dissenting opinion than Scalia. So Thomas isn’t exactly stupid, and Scalia’s “brilliance” is perhaps a bit overrated.
Kimmitt
There was an extra effort to take down Thomas. Moreso than Scalia.
I agree with this, but it was partially because of Scalia. Scalia’s appointment in 1986 was managed in almost the same fashion as Thomas (except that Scalia was obviously qualified). Scalia is Italian-American, then an ethnic group with massive ties to the Democratic Party. Reagan used his ethnicity as a way to keep Democrats from being able to object to Scalia’s far-right conservatism (again, there is just no question that Scalia is intellectually qualified for the job).
With Thomas, the combination of the fact that the exact same trick was being played on Democrats again and his relative lack of qualification lead to, in my opinion, a larger response.
Geek, Esq.
Dear lord, are people really forgetting that Thomas was cruising towards approval until the Anita Hill story broke?
Anita Hill. Anita Hill. Anita Hill.
Those are the three top reasons why Thomas faced so much opposition. Because women voters weren’t crazy about an abusive, misogynistic pervert being named to the court.
Kimmitt
I respectfully submit that Anita Hill was seized upon as an excuse by Democratic lawmakers which would allow them to reject Thomas without alienating the African-American constituency. This seizure was independent of the credibility of her testimony; the political opportunity it offered was simply too good to pass up.
courtwatcher
“No questions” is one of the dumbest reason to slam Thomas. Having practiced before the Court and argued cases in many Federal and State Supreme Courts questions are rarely an important part of a Court’s reasoning. If they are unprepared they ask question in lower Courts because they actually have no clue what the issues are. They are far to busy with cases. This however, is just not true at the Supreme Court where there is a detailed vetting process before a case is even heard by the bench. First there are cert petitions where the Court argues about the case in chambers through memos and discussion and decides if it should hear it on the merits. Then briefs are extensive, the Constitutional issue framed, bench memo’s prepared, appendix avaialble and a support staff that is unheard of in any other Court. In many cases the specific facts of the case are a sideshow. Once the case is set for argument the chances of one of the Justices actually needing a question answered by the oralist because they don’t know or cannot find out the answer later from the record is very unlikely.
They may want to know the advocates thoughts (but they dont really care.) Often Q’s are for the other members of the bench to help argue a point later on in the roundtable. Or to show off or to be provacative (Scalia is a perfect example). Certain members are active others are not. Thomas’s style is reminiscent of the majority of Justices going way back who leave their arguments for the people that matter in Chambers – – the other members of the Court.
It has nothing to do with intellectual firepower or even in my mind intellectual curiousity. Its just the way he is.
Persoanlly I think his opinions are well pretty well reasoned legally whether I agree with the conclusions or not. There are no clearly right or wrong answers thats why the Court is 5-4 or 6-3 so often. Thomas is not out there in 8-1 decisons in the minority writing on a Big Chief tablet after all.
A for Ried’s comparison it was inane. How can Scalia be brilliant and Thomas be an embarrassment when their vote/conclusion is the same on many issues. Reid didn’t say Thomas was an embarrasment because he followed Scalia but that his own opinions were poorly wriiten.
So when Thomas joins a “brilliant” Scalia opinion (that may have been assigned by Rhenquist and Thomas is in the majority) he must be just a follower and gets no credit for being in the majority but not the author.
But if he writes and Scalia joins – is Scalia an embarrasment only in those cases because he agrees with Thomas’ “poorly written opinion” yet sees no reason to add a concurring opinion.That is chickenshit analysis.
Ried took a cheap shot pure and simple plying on the public perception of Thomas. He is entiled to his belief that Thomas should not be elevated but this reasoning is political rhethoric not real analysis.
Kimmitt
A for Ried’s comparison it was inane. How can Scalia be brilliant and Thomas be an embarrassment when their vote/conclusion is the same on many issues.
For the same reason that John Cole is brilliant, but the dorky College Republican President at UH is an embarrassment. Because sometimes brilliant people and embarrassing people have the same opinions.
jeff
There was an article in yesterdays Philadelphia Daily News that said former Steelers great and Hall of Fame WR Lynn Swann is gonna run for Governor of PA. AS A REPUBLICAN. So, now there’ll be another prominent black Republican for Democrats to call an Uncle Tom.
I will say that, although i’d vote for him, if he makes it through the primary he’ll still probably have no shot against Rendell.
Andrew Ian Dodge
The new Democratic tactic for keeping the black vote (and the Jewish one too I would bet) guilt.
Bloggerhead
As opposed to the Republican tactic for gaining the Black and Jewish vote (and the Hispanic, too, it would appear): wild, nonsensical, even pathological charges of racism. Hey, but what would a conservative be without the spittle.
Kimmitt
Hey, but what would a conservative be without the spittle.
Wait, I know this one. A Libertarian? A moderate? Dang, it’s on the tip of my tongue.
free online poker
world poker tour – poker rules, poker | online poker – paradise poker, online poker | texas holdem – online poker rooms, world series of poker | WPT – texas hold’em, poker chips | online poker – poker chips, poker chips | poker rules – free poker online, empirepoker | poker stars – poker, poker supplies | free poker online – poker, online poker sites | poker rooms – free online poker, poker tournaments | empire poker – free poker online, texas holdem | WPT – online poker, paradise poker | texas holdem poker – poker games, poker rooms | partypoker – poker tournaments, partypoker
courtney
i like your site