D.C. Democratic Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton made a shocking comment about Associate Justice Clarence Thomas this week, stating that ” We’ve got someone who proposes to be African-American on the court.” It is a shocking insult directed at Thomas and it is unworthy of Norton. It also seems to suggest that someone cannot be a true African-American if they are conservative.
The comment came in response to a question on whether President Obama would select a black nominee to replace Justice Stevens. Norton reportedly responded “We’re not sure this president is ever going to nominate another African-American to the court. [Barack Obama]’s African-American. We’ve got someone who proposes to be African-American on the court.”
One can only imagine the response if a white member said about Stevens that “we got someone who proposes to be white on the court.” There is no question that Thomas is a lightning rod for liberals, but this comment should be roundly condemned by liberals and immediately retracted by Norton. One can certainly disagree with Thomas’ writing, as I do, while preserving civility and, yes, respect in the debate. Thomas is a person with an amazing personal story. Clarence Thomas was raised in Pin Point, Georgia — a poor black town without a sewage system or paved roads. His father was a farm worker and his mother was a domestic worker who spoke Gullah as a first language. While liberals were quick to celebrate the life of Justice Sotomayor for growing up in the projects and achieving so much in her life, they appear unwilling to credit Thomas with his own amazing and difficult life, including being left homeless as a child.
It is particularly disappointing from a former Georgetown law professor. I have great respect for Delegate Norton, though we were on different sides in the D.C. Vote controversy. However, this is only the latest personal attack on Thomas that is entirely out of line.
For the story, click here
foo wrote:
“Thomas is a douche. Norton is a racist because she presumes that you must act or think in a particular way if you’re black.”
__________________________________
Prof Turley and foo are best on the mark with Norton’s remark.
mahtso:
“Professor Turley is right on this one. And, to me, this comment thread exemplifies the lack of tolerance among (those I consider to be) liberals.”
******************
I don’t think it is intolerant to point up hypocrisy. I may disagree with the way Norton did it, but did you really think she meant the comment literally?
Byron:
My guess is that he isn’t so “bright” because he believe in individual liberty, the rule of law and constitutional prohibitions against the power of the state. He probably also believes in free market capitalism which must make him a really dim bulb.
*********************
He isn’t so “bright” because he believes in harassing women subordinates, voting in lockstep, and “Long Dong Silver.” The other concepts provide sufficient cover for his mean intellect.
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.>/i>
~John Stuart Mill (Letter to the Conservative MP, Sir John Pakington (March 1866)
Professor Turley is right on this one. And, to me, this comment thread exemplifies the lack of tolerance among (those I consider to be) liberals.
Byron:
What Buddha said. Thomas, as a Justice, is mediocre at best, and his record reflects his mediocrity. And, he strikes me as a very angry black man. He appears, IMHO, to be angry at those who continue to struggle through everyday life as if it’s their fault they cannot get out of the rut they are in. The reality is that while everyone would like to succeed in life, and many struggle to succeed, not all are lucky enough to do so. I hardly think poor people enjoy being poor, but, they remain poor because they don’t have the same advantages as those who aren’t poor, such as better schools, etc. And, unfortunately, much has to do with their ethnicity.
Elaine M:
No harm, no foul – I didn’t take your comments as criticism. I agree with your comments, actually. However, in my view, minorities must struggle twice as hard as whites, so I would think that they would be more compassionate towards those who struggle just as they did.
Thomas has a a long history of trading on race when it souits him and then basically closing the door to other African-Americans behind him (e.g., his stint in the Reagan Administration). There’s nothing wrong with what Norton said. It would seem a little patronizing if a white liberal said it, but Norton isn’t a white liberal. And unlike Thomas, she was part of the civil rights movement and a protege of Bayard Rustin. Thomas played the role of militant when he was in college and changed his tune afterward. his commitment to African-Americans other than himself is neglibible and its not like Norton pointed out other non-Black aspects of his like such as his Caucasian wingnut wife.
I hope everyone here who is excusing Norton remembers it the next time a conservative says something stupid and inflammatory (and let’s face it, it won’t take long). You have no right to be outraged about stupid, snotty discourse from the right if you endorse what Norton said. Your criticisms of Thomas are accurate, but taking cheap shots based on race is despicable.
Look at Thomas’s picture — it’s obvious he’s black.
Look at his record — it’s just as obvious that he couldn’t possibly be black.
Clarence Thomas is the biggest enemy of the black community on the court today, by far. In all things he does, Thomas insults the black community. It is only fitting that Norton returns the favor.
Thomas is a douche. Norton is a racist because she presumes that you must act or think in a particular way if you’re black.
mespo’s words are on target and gracious
I, however, love Eleanor Holmes Norton and I think she gave Justice Thomas all the respect he deserves. I find the supposed insult … tasteful and not at all shocking … and true.
Byron,
Thomas isn’t so bright because he simply isn’t so bright. His politics have nothing to do with it. I’d kick his ass on Jeopardy and in a courtroom (as long as he didn’t have a slam-dunk case – it happens). So could mespo, Vince and Mike A not to mention the Prof. As a lawyer? He’s average at best. The ABA (professional association mind you) regularly issues a qualification ranking for SCOTUS nominees. Most have gotten the “Well Qualified” ranking no matter their personal politics.
Thomas simply got the “Qualified” rating.
Defend his conservatism all you like but he’s a C student at best. A follower in jurisprudence, not a leader.
vlf2112–
“…I’m thinking she meant to say that Thomas has forgotten from whence he came, in particular, his lack of compassion and obvious distain for those who struggle now as he once did.”
I’ve known white people who have forgotten the humble beginnings from whence they came. They have little compassion for those who have to struggle as they once did. I think that kind of change of attitude happens to people of all races and ethnicities.
BTW, I’m not criticizing your comments.
vlf2112:
“I admire his gumption (actually, this is the only thing I admire about him) in making a better life for himself but, let’s face it, he isn’t the brightest of legal bulbs out there.”
And I suppose Kennedy, Sotomajor, Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens are brighter? And certainly Thurgood Marshall was a brilliant intellect as well. My guess is that he isn’t so “bright” because he believe in individual liberty, the rule of law and constitutional prohibitions against the power of the state. He probably also believes in free market capitalism which must make him a really dim bulb.
While I am certainly not excusing the way Norton framed her comment (it was a pretty lousy way to get her point across), I’m thinking she meant to say that Thomas has forgotten from whence he came, in particular, his lack of compassion and obvious distain for those who struggle now as he once did.
I admire his gumption (actually, this is the only thing I admire about him) in making a better life for himself but, let’s face it, he isn’t the brightest of legal bulbs out there.
I’m with mespo.
When one studies the Negritude Poets (Leon Damas, Emile Roumer, David Diop, etc.) what you find out quickly is despite the descriptive label of their sub-genre, the poetry isn’t about being black. It’s about being human and humane or reactions to the inhuman and inhumane. I think Norton’s remarks could be considered inflammatory to a degree, but as she is a member of the class of people she “slighted” it’s to my reading that she’s saying less about his color than the content (or lack thereof) of Thomas’ character (such as it is) albeit in a bit of a sloppy short hand way.
I think she meant you cannot be “black” unless you appreciate Obama
Byron:
I suppose one can only be truly black if one embraces the tenants of Marx and Lenin?
**************
I think she meant you cannot be “black” unless you appreciate the historical struggle and have some compassion for those who are.
He’s married to a white woman that represents the Tea Party Movement. Need I say more?
I suppose one can only be truly black if one embraces the tenants of Marx and Lenin?
Liberty is not a concept black people believe in? Self determination is anathema? Hard work and perseverance are unknown in the black community?
Eleanor must be a partisan political hack, but then I already knew that.
I think Norton was using short-handed way of describing someone with little concern for the issues of those who have not ascended from the same socio-economic situation as did Thomas. In my experience, those who overcome great suffering in their early lives generally fall into two attitudinal camps: those who have great compassion for others similarly situated, and the angry ones who consider their similar situated brethren weak and deserving of their plight. Thomas strikes me as the latter given his opinions and refusal to support the very affirmative action programs which served as his stepping stool out of poverty. I think a little jab at the hypocrisy won’t shake the foundations of the republic or the court, which one has to admit, will likely never commission a bust of a justice whose asks few questions nor writes much of significance.