A nomination that will divide (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel calls Justice Thomas an asterisk)

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ^ | 11/1/2005 | MJS editorial board

[dangus]

>> Clarence Thomas isnt a real black. <<

"Colin Powell isn't black." -- 100s of Democrats and liberals.
"Linda Chavez isn't really Hispanic" -- NCLR.

[layman]

he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America

The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to represent the views of the framers of the Constitution. It is the job of Congress to represent the views of mainstream black America. The MJS editorial board wears its ignorance on its sleeve.

[rdb3]

Thus, if Justice Thomas does his sworn duty as outlined in his oath and protects the Constitution and decides an issue based upon legal standards, then to the leftist it is a foregone conclusion that he is not adhereing to the specific interests of a class to which they have arbitrarily assigned him and thus betrayed his duty in the marxist world.
How can such an arguement be made with a straight face and few readers protest in alarm? The subversion of the last sixty years is the plain answer -- leftists.

Right. The Marxist Laboratory^© must be maintained at all costs in the one area where it flourishes unquestionably.

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.

[Capitalist Pig]

However, Justice Ginsberg certainly represents the mainstream beliefs of American Females. She believes:

1. that a woman's role as mother or wife is inherently oppressive;
2. that the Boy Scouts perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and must ne integrated or abolished;
3. that "The increasingly common two-earner family pattern should impel development of a comprehensive program of government-supported child care."
4. that the legal age of sexual consent should be lowered to 12
5. that "Prostitution as a consenual act between adults is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions."

/sarcasm off

[Watery Tart]

...a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.

The Urinel-Scentinel has determined that Justice Thomas only deserves three-fifths of an asterisk, but went with a complete asterisk. They determined that the three-fifths asterisk was racist, and would cause controversy.

</sarcasm>
</sorta>
</I'llgetbacktoyouonthat>

Deserves??

[Buck W.]

...and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.

No problem--Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, and Breyer represent the interests of liberals of all colors.

[Inwoodian]

Explain to me again how Alito is a divider gut Ginsberg isn't? Wasn't the ACLU started as a Commie front?

[Petronski]

Yes, that's right. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has called Justice Thomas an asterisk.

Not really. They said he deserves an asterisk. Still offensive, but not as offensive as saying he is an asterisk.

[ArrogantBustard]

In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.

Once again, the putrid racism festering at the core of leftist "thought" and "culture" rears its ugly head.

[Redbob]

"He was the sole justice on a 3rd Circuit panel in 1991 to regard a Pennsylvania requirement that women notify their husbands before getting an abortion as not an undue burden on access to the procedure. The Supreme Court specifically disagreed with his dissent in an opinion written by O'Connor."

But one dissented by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Byron White, Scalia, Thomas.
Hardly unanimous, and perhaps soon subject to review.

[headsonpikes]

a black man, who deserves an asterisk

Well, he does - an asterisk is a star!

[KC_Conspirator]

What a compilation of trash! And rascist too!

[Da Bilge Troll]

Interesting. Of course, the article doesn't explain why "diversity" is important when interpreting the law and the Constitution.

[John O]

Souter and STevens are the only Protestant white males

Let me just add that while they may identify as Protestant they are definitely not Christian. It's impossible to be a Christina and make some of the rulings they've made.

[Agrarian]

That was precisely my point. They are not representative of the average Protestant, even if you roll in all of the non-believers who might self-identify as Protestant.

[Aetius]

Where do you even start on this nonsense?

1. This whole 'pick a nominee who will divide us, not unite us' is absurd. There is no such candidate. A liberal nominee will be deemed moderate by the Left and the media, but conservatives won't be fooled, and they will be upset, but of course to those on the far left like the authors of this piece, conservatives don't count. In other words, unity is achieved by pleasing all those in the alleged middle to those on the far left, with the discontent of the right being meaningless, but when the far left is upset, then we have been divided as a nation. Its ridiculous.

2. It is not for the Court to mirror 'diversity.' Besides which, its an empty criticism anyway because as witnessed by their later swipe at Thomas, only liberal minorities count towards achieving diversity. Its a safe bet that these leftwing nuts would not have praised Bush had he nominated Emilio Garza, or JRB, or Edith Jones.

3. By 'worrisome stands' they of course mean stands that actually show fealty to the Constitution. The same is true of 'archconservative.'

4. The reason Clinton's nominees sailed through is because the GOP has never (at least in recent decades) mounted a serious effort to derail a nominee of the duly-elected President. Whether that was admirable or a sign of weakness and a refusal to fight is debatable. Personally, I can appreciate and support the principle that nominees should get an up or down vote from the full Senate (therefore I can understand a Republican voting Ginsburg out of committee), but it is a blight on the record of conservative Senators that they didn't try to defeat a radical like Ginsburg in the full vote.

5. "Another minus is that the nomination lessens the court's diversity.... She came to see the virtues of having a court that looks like America - doubtless a big reason she softened her opposition to affirmative action in recent years" : FIrst of all, the President picks justices, so O'Connor's feelings on the matter are irrelevant. And this last part about O'Connor warming up to racial preferences is an indictment of O'Connor, because it shows she lets modern buzz words and concepts like 'diversity' get in the way of a principled and consistent interpretation of the Constitution. Either preferences are bad or they are not; that elites have come to worship the concept of diversity should have no bearing on her take on the Constitution.

6. The shot at Thomas is a cheap one, and again betrays a misunderstanding of what a judge should do. It is not for Thomas to represent the views of most black Americans any more than Roberts should represent those of most white Americans. Their duty is to apply the Constitution as it was intended to be applied. And I wonder how specific they think this absurd premise should be taken? For example, most black Americans oppose gay marriage, so when it comes before the High Court, and if Thomas refrains from voting to impose it, will they praise Thomas for standing up for the views and values of most black Americans? Somehow I doubt it.

7. The Pennsylvania Casey case (with the 'Casey' being former Democratic governor Bob Casey) involved a statute that provided for exceptions to the notification requirement, and all Alito did was correctly say that the state had a right to implement such laws, not that they should, a distinction often lost on those who support the judicial imposition of the Left's unpopular, out-of-the-mainstream cultural agenda.

[steveegg]

Update - Charlie Sykes posts an exchange between a reader and the clueless Gregory Stafford*, the writer of the tripe that kicked this off -

From: Ed Poole, Jr
To: Ricardo Pimentel
Cc: Marty Kaiser
Subject: Today's Editorial Rant

Regarding:

"In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America."

By using your own racist stereotyping bigoted example, the ultra-liberal Justice John Paul Stevens and ultra-liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg deserve an asterisk too because, after all, they don't represent the views of mainstream white America.

I love it when the Left shows just how incredibly racist and bigoted they really are! Talk about putting your foot, all the way up to your knee, in your mouth. Keep up the great work. To quote televisions That 70's Show dad Red Forman and Gen.Russell Honore: You're a dumb-ass stuck on stupid!

Sincerely,
Ed Poole, Jr.

Stanford* replied:

Mr. Poole:

Thanks for your message. Mr. Pimentel* asked me, as the writer of the editorial, to respond. We were merely noting in the passage to which you object that the elder President Bush had appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court for the sake of racial diversity, but that, because Thomas often takes stands at odds with mainstream black thought, his appointment does not help the court mirror America as much as it could have – which is what diversity is all about. Noting that Thomas is on the fringes of black thought is merely observing a fact, not stereotyping. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg do represent wide swaths of American thought.

Gregory Stanford*
Editorial Writer/Columnist
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

*Does not represent the mainstream of American thought as agreed to by Mr. Sykes and me, and all asterisks were in Sykes' copy.

[bocopar]

RADIO SPOT TEXT FOR 11/4/05

I wish the left would make up their minds….

Either this nation is more divided than it’s ever been, or things are okay. If you listen to New York Senator Chuck Schumer, you’d think President Bush didn’t nominate a person who was twice unanimously confirmed to the federal bench, served on the Third Circuit for over 15 years, and who’s colleagues think him a great pick. You’d think he nominated a Nazi….

But if you think about it, who’s really doing the dividing here? In Monday’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, an unsigned editorial claimed that, “In losing a woman, the court with Judge Samuel Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.”

So Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America. Funny, I talked to a black college student just the other day that knew all about Senator Robert Byrd but didn’t know he was once a Klan recruiter. He didn’t know that a higher percentage of Senate Democrats, incuding Al Gore’s father, voted against the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, yet liberals all showed up and sang the praises of Rosa Parks.

There’s a lot the left leaves out….

For example, Michael Moore constantly says he doesn’t invest in the stock market because he claims it’s evil, yet his portfolio includes Halliburton, Boeing, and HMOs. Liberal-cause financier George Soros made his billions in the stock market. Minority leader Nancy Pelosi bashes anyone who bashes unions and accepted the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Unions, while using non-UFW workers on her own Napa Valley Vineyard.

Barbra Streisand calls Republicans racists at any opportunity, yet on her personal staff of 50, she’s only employed one black person. She lectures all of us about our consumerist culture, yet she spends $22,000 a year to keep her lawn green. The Clintons claim they pay the maximum amount on their taxes every year because it's the right thing to do and they lecture us about our need to pay more taxes, while they turn around and use lucrative tax shelters and take outrageous tax deductions.

Ralph Nader supposedly lives a monk-like existence and claims to be a champion of the working man, yet he fired some of his employees for trying to form a union.

All of these people claim to be for minorities but they all have that stellar record of hypocrisy. These are the same people who the media tell black people are our heroes and blacks buy it. So it’s no wonder why they are not on the same page as Justice Clarence “the asterisk” Thomas. Black conservatives scare liberals because we don’t buy their BS and we know one day black America will learn the truth.

And that truth will not have an asterisk.

[Rosemont]

an outrage

[steveegg]

BTTT