Clarence Thomas' Take: The Swamp
 
The Swamp
-
Posted September 28, 2007 4:15 PM
The Swamp

by James Oliphant

You'll have two chances to see Clarence Thomas in the next few days, likely two more than you've had in a very long time.

The notoriously private justice will be on CBS' "60 Minutes" Sunday and then on ABC throughout the day on Monday, culminating in an extended interview on "Nightline." Monday is the first day of the new Supreme Court term.

Thomas, not coincidentally, has a book coming out, which explains why he's now emerging from the shadows. In years past, he has largely confined himself to giving speeches before sympathetic groups and avoiding the mainstream media. And even if you've come to Washington to see Thomas on the bench, it's highly unlikely that you've ever heard him speak. He has become legendary for keeping silent during oral argument.

Those who have chronicled Thomas on the high court say he holds the press responsible for public pillorying he took in 1991 during his confirmation hearing. His memoir, which will be released Monday, finally provides his take on the tumultuous time, although reportedly it doesn't venture beyond '91 to address his tenure on the court. He has been viewed as the most conservative of all of the justices with which he has served.

Thomas' interview with CBS' Steve Kroft is previewed here, in which Thomas suggests his opponents who rallied against him in 1991 were motivated by a fear over abortion rights, not the sexual harassment allegations Thomas was facing. "Things are out of control," Thomas reportedly says in the interview. "That's not good for the country. It's not good for the court. What are we going to look like years from now if we can't get people confirmed because everybody gets to attack them. They get to draw and quarter them."

On Monday, Thomas will be interviewed by ABC's Jan Crawford Greenburg, who argued in her recent book, "Supreme Conflict," that Thomas has played a more influential role in shaping the court than believed. (Greenburg is a former writer for the Chicago Tribune.)

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo

Comments

"JUDGE THOMAS SPEAKS"

OH MY GOD, DID ANITA LET HIM COME OUTSIDE TO PLAY OR WHAT.

THIS IS THE ONLY BLACK MAN THAT HAS NOT HAD ANYTHING TO SAY FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS. HE'S JUST BEEN HIDING BEHIND HIS CLOAK AND DAGGER AND STICKING IT TO EVERYONE.

I JUST WANT TO KNOW HIS TAKE ON HOW DID THE SUPREME COURT OVER RULE A STATES SUPREME COURT WHEN IT CAME TO COUNTING VOTES.
I DIDN'T GET THAT AT ALL.

PAYBACK AMERICA FOR NOT BEING ON THE BLACK MANS PANEL WHEN BEING ATTACKED BY A WOMAN.

Looks like it to me. Now we are damned because of his disbelief that he was really born black. TALK ABOUT NOT BLACK ENOUGH, THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF NOT BLACK ENOUGH.

Because he is not white enough, black enough, yellow enough, green enough, alien enough, foreign enough, or AMERICAN ENOUGH TO DO HIS JOB BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION, otherwise, we wouldn't be where we are now.

I THINK THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAD THE GOODS ON HIS ANITA HALL FLING, AND JUST SLUTTED HER OUT AND NOW HERE WE ARE.

HE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL NIGHTMARE AND A CIVIL RIGHTS COUP DE TAU FOR THE GOP PARTY.


roger,

cap key


Clarence Thomas - Bush41's best move as president.


After reading the two most-commented pieces in The Swamp today, I'm reminded that Clarence Thomas performed the marriage ceremony for Rush Limbaugh and (now ex-wife) Marta Fitzgerald in May of 1994. File under: "Things that make you want to go hmmmm":
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DE2D7123BF933A05756C0A962958260&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fT%2fThomas%2c%20Clarence


Clarence Thomas would have functioned well in the courts of Benito Mussolinis' Italy. Whatever the powerful want, the powerful get. He is not abused, he is despised.


Of course he's not black enough for the victimhood crowd. He made it on his own. (Just like so many others.)
Obama on the other hand I'm not so sure of. There was that race norming thing going on at the time.


Hmm... ROGER is using some lower case here. So is that for emphasis?


Of course he's not black enough for the victimhood crowd. He made it on his own. (Just like so many others.)
Posted by: whatnow | September 29, 2007 12:45 PM

Your statement is blatantly false, "whatnow," and ignoring it allows you to cast aside why Clarence Thomas is such a glaring hypocrite.

CLARENCE THOMAS BENEFITTED DIRECTLY FROM AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO GET INTO COLLEGE AND LAW SCHOOL, AND FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES THE SUPREME COURT. Yet Thomas has devoted his work on the bench to gutting the provisions that got him ahead, fulfilling exactly what I've always said of Republicans: they want to climb the ladder and pull it up after them, and no one makes that more evident than Justice Clarence Thomas.

"Thus, although he seriously believes that his extremely conservative legal opinions are in the best interests of African-Americans, and yearns to be respected by them, he is arguably one of the most viscerally despised people in black America. It is incontestable that he has benefited from affirmative action at critical moments in his life, yet he denounces the policy and has persuaded himself that it played little part in his success. He berates disadvantaged people who view themselves as victims of racism and preaches an austere individualism, yet harbors self-pitying feelings of resentment and anger at his own experiences of racism. His ardent defense of states’ rights would have required him to uphold Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, not to mention segregated education, yet he lives with a white wife in Virginia. He is said to dislike light-skinned blacks, yet he is the legal guardian of a biracial child, the son of one of his numerous poor relatives. He frequently preaches the virtues of honesty and truthfulness, yet there is now little doubt that he lied repeatedly during his confirmation hearings — not only about his pornophilia and bawdy humor but, more important, about his legal views and familiarity with cases like Roe v. Wade."
http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/booknook/entries/2007/06/15/sneak_peak_at_biography_of_jus.html


To respond to what little of Roger's babble was intelligible, here is a quote:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

As you can see from the quote, the Constitution of the United States says that the Electors are selected by the legislature of the state. If it merely said "State" rather than pointing explicitly to the legislature, then it would have been purely a state matter. This demonstrates that Thomas, apparently unlike the average liberal, can read.


It seems to me the attacks on Clarence Thomas above boil down to racism. None of them would be made if he wasn't black. TIme for some inner reflection by the posters, perhaps?

Ed


I hate to say this but I am pleased that Peter Jennings is not here to see how low ABC has sunk to present the sham about Clarence Thomas.

Q: Will Anita Hill be asked to respond? If so, will ABC make a comment about their attempts to present both sides of a story?
(Oh, sorry, I must have lost myself in the hopes of the truth for a moment!)


Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "x" in the field below: