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
Buddha:
Your biggest error is not realizing corporations are people and they have every right to spend their money however they want. In a democracy with limited government, people have freedom. When government begins to limit that freedom by taking away our ability to choose how to spend our own money then it will only be a matter of time before that government takes over the rights of the people. We should not be like the frog placed in cool water only to realize that when it gets hot, we can’t get out.
Mespo:
It is not unreasonable to believe that Jesus Christ rose from the grave. He said that his sheep will hear is voice. Anyone who can’t hear his voice probably is not part of the flock. It is these who always try to discredit Christianity. Either their lack of understanding or hardness of heart blinds them. I can’t see the wind but can feel and see its effects. The same is true with Jesus Christ.
Buddha:
Corporations have every right to spend as much as they want on campaigns. That is Free Enterprise. If a candidate can hurt a business which in turn hurts employees, that business has a right to rcise its first amendment rights. Remember a business is made up of people and it is people spending the money. That is clearly covered under the first amendment.
James:
“Whether you agree or even I agree is simply our opinion. Your problem is that you try to make your opinion a fact.”
**************
Ah, the old “all opinions (or interpretations) are valid” canard which ignores the simple fact that some opinions are more reasonable than others given the available evidence.
BTW please provide the evidence for your assertion that “He is still in his grave whereas Christ has risen (a fact).” Even ancient Christians didn’t believe in a literal bodily resurrection, but it was seen as a interpretation of Christ’s message of transformation and rebirth in the spirit. ironically, the fundie crowd interprets the conflicting stories to be literally true. Proof, I suppose, that some interpretations are more reasonable than others.
Tell me,James, what do you find more reasonable: that the physical laws of the universe were suspended on Easter morn or that some First Century authors took some liberties with allegorical stories?
Zombies? Anyone? Zombies?
“whereas Christ has risen (a fact)”
Hearsay does not a fact make.
“to be wrong on a factual”
Adverbs are important.
James,
Your problem is you think I would care what you think about me personally or that attacking Buddha would somehow offend me or anger me into, what?, making a mistake? That’s the problem with open mic night. Amateurs make amateurish attempts.
Thomas is a corporatist buffoon.
It’s conveniently my opinion but also a fact bolstered by rulings like Citizens United and his weak apologist stance for endorsing open fascism in elevating the “rights” of the legal fiction corporations over natural citizens by allowing them to have all the politicians, er, advertising they can buy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us/politics/04scotus.html
You are indeed entitled to your own opinion. You are also entitled for it to be wrong a factual and scholarly basis. I brought some evidence of why Thomas is a clown. I didn’t have to break a sweat. What you got, sport? Aside from a really dull stick to poke with?
Buddha, I was wondering if you really are a little fat man? Justice Thomas has done a great deal for the court. Whether you agree or even I agree is simply our opinion. Your problem is that you try to make your opinion a fact. This is exactly the same as making Buddha a God. He is still in his grave whereas Christ has risen (a fact). I am not playing the race card. My point is that whenever a person of color takes a stand for conservatism, they are branded by their own as “not being one of them.”
DigitalDave,
I am not opposed to calling a person a liar, if they tell an obvious lie. For example, if someone stated—for whatever reason—that Prof Turley was not a lawyer and he was not a professor at GW Law who also offered this blawg within which we comment. Therefore, that person would be a liar by any reasonable and fair measure.
However, Byron was expressing opinions, as you well know, and not necessarily telling white or other types of lies. Byron is a conservative—as I am—although I often do not agree with him. He did perpetrate a big lie herein once, but he has completely ‘made up’ for that many times over and has become a welcome and popular ‘regular’ contributor. By the way, any human who states that he or she does not lie, is a liar.
I have dealt with several lawyers on environmental lawsuits and I have asked them why they do not use the “L-word” in oral arguments in court or within transcriptions of arguments when it is patently obvious that a witness or declarant—most often a government employee—is telling a bald-faced lie and everyone knows it. They usually state that it is best to discredit the testimony or declarative statements with facts/logic/law by highlighting the inconsistencies or sophistry of witnesses’ claims.
Perhaps some attorneys will give us their opinion on the validity or not of using the “L” word in their legal practices—in a general way, of course.
Here is some neat insight of why lawyers might not want to call a witness a liar in court–with a Star Wars twist for the fans of that terrible show.
http://www.trialtheater.com/wordpress/cross-examination/call-the-witness-aliar/
Digital Dave:
I personally don’t mind you calling me a liar. It is my opinion that b-crats think up regulations to control some aspect of society that some politician or another deem necessary to protect some fool from using a particular tool, etc in an incorrect manor. If you are stupid enough to use a screwdriver to scratch your eye don’t you think you deserve to lose your eye? Or if you are foolish enough to give a contractor all of your money to replace your roof before he even brings the shingles over don’t you think you are responsible when he takes off and you have neither money nor shingles?
A small amount of research can protect you, but most people don’t want to take a little extra time to look into something. They also want to save money, when the contractor above gave the person a bid of $3,000 and the next closest was $6,0000 don’t you think some flags should have gone up? But probably they didn’t even get 3 bids. All it would have taken was for them to call a local architect or structural engineer and ask a couple of questions. Problem solved and it took 3 minutes.
But we have huge product liability laws and much oversight of contractors to protect people from their own stupidity. This costs the economy large sums of money and makes everything more expensive. Why? Because no one wants to take responsibility for their actions and expects someone else to watch their back.
I probably should have qualified my statement about b-crats. My apologies, I will assume you are a government employee from your response?
Buddha Is Laughing — [calling Byron a “liar” was] 1) a bit harsh and 2) against the One Rule.
—————————
Mea culpa. Guilty as charged.
In my post, I felt a pang of regret at harshly criticizing a fellow commenter whom I have not been reading for long. It has been just one week since I discovered Jonathan Turley’s blog, and only today (yesterday now) did I first feel the urge to rebuke his position. Had I known about the One Rule I would not have added the final phrase.
However, as to the content of my remark, I can only say in my defense that Byron’s whole post, from begin to end, was nothing but a series of false innuendo and satirical exageration that distorted his seed of reason into absurdity. Let’s be honest, does Byron genuinely think all government employees “couldn’t poor piss out of a boot?” If he would state his argument plainly, I would be honored to rebut it directly.
However, if Byron (or Jonathon) is offended by my childish name-calling, then I do appologize. Perhaps he could just imagine that I, like he, was merely outrageously inflating my sentiments — namely — “I disagree.”
mahtso
I thought John Gochnaur of the Cleveland Indians was the worst baseball player …. oh, wait … I’m missing your point aren’t I?
“As to being the “dumbest” Justice: To me that sounds about as bad as saying someone is the worst baseball player on the Yankees.”(mahtso)
I think that’s the best defense of Justice Thomas that can be offered … he is, indeed, on the Supreme Court …… but unlike any player on the Yankee’s team, can one honestly say that Clarence Thomas’s record of achievement earned him the seat? His confirmation was nothing more than a giant, political farce … complete with coke cans sprouting pubic hairs, and pornographic film discussions. All of which, based on his lackluster performance up to this point, will be a large part of his legacy in the history books for the next 200 years.
No. It’s an admission I’m not doing your homework.
““We said (in summary) that he is a barely competent toady to [J.] Scalia and the dumbest justice at SCOTUS.”
Evidenced by his ABA rating and his case record. You want to read through his drivel, be my guest.”
Be your guest? I’ll take that as an admission that you cannot back up your statement.
I doubt that the either of those sources could possible prove that that J. Thomas is J. Scalia’s toady. But give me a couple of specific sitations and prove me wrong.
As to being the “dumbest” Justice: To me that sounds about as bad as saying someone is the worst baseball player on the Yankees.
oops … sorry Elaine … I meant to type “from” … from the proper perspective.
Teresa,
Thank goodness I was educated by liberals … I can view the exhibits in any Natural History Museum with the proper perspective.
Buddah.
Thanks for that Monty Python skit. I believe it is one that I have not actually seen before. But any Monty Python skit is worth seeing again and again and again.
WordPress subscription management seems to have gone wonky. The page I now get lists blogs only not blog thread entries and it is not clear what I should do to activate a new thread subscription.
And now, the Insurance Sketch.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO2R_DDZPCM&hl=en_US&fs=1&]