It is good we are now allies, Meeester Kennedy.
Posted on 01/25/2006 4:41:40 PM PST by mdittmar
Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., today called current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas an "abomination" when compared with the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.
Marshall, the first black appointed to the Supreme Court, was the lead litigator on the historic 1954 school desegregation case and, as a justice, a champion of civil rights. He died in 1993.
Thomas was the second black appointed to the Supreme Court, and he succeeded the retiring Marshall in 1991 after being nominated by the first President George Bush. Thomas' televised confirmation hearings captured the nation's attention when Professor Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment, a charge he denied.
As a justice, Thomas has been a staunch conservative who supports states' rights and opposes abortion and affirmative action.
Salazar's comment about Thomas came during a telephone news conference in which said he would not be part of any possible Democratic filibuster to stop a vote on the confirmation of Samuel Alito as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is good we are now allies, Meeester Kennedy.
Coloradans could answer this better than I could being an out of stater but I will say this. Did you see the Meet the Press debate between Coors and Salazar? Coors was quite possibly the worst candidate put up last year. And he was handpicked over a sitting Congressman for the run.
You seem unwilling to see the truth so you continue to slander Clarence Thomas.
Pathetic.
You were hit on by your boss so of course, Clarence Thomas hit on his worker.
Perfectly logical...........NOT!
The girl professed ignorance to the fact that he made the statement and I told her I thought her boss was a racist and that his comment was obscene.
Salazer thinks Dobson's group is the anti-Christ and Thomas an abomination. Given he apparently is revolted by all that is good, or represents good, I'd return he evidently has sympathies with the agenda of the Prince of Abomination.
Harsh? No more so then the vile that comes out of his mouth. This is the state that also boosts that lunatic professor right? Colorado may be flooded with fleeing Liberals from Cali, but I'd recommend they think twice about allowing their ideology to lead to support of such men in politics. I'd also recommend Republicans realize a badly run campaign, and a guy that sells beer, does not warrant voting in a guy that devalues everything they support for six years.
bttt
I'll second that motion.
Owens is a squishy liberal.
Owens has demonstrated zero leadership skills!
There's several Salazar brothers. Colorado will be better off without them, but their hispanic voters don't understand that.
Coloradans could answer this better than I could being an out of stater
but I will say this. Did you see the Meet the Press debate between Coors and Salazar?
Coors was quite possibly the worst candidate put up last year.
And he was handpicked over a sitting Congressman for the run.
162 posted on 01/26/2006 7:04:13 AM MST by dubyaismypresident
Pete Coors was selected by the majority of Republican
voters in the Republican primary!
Coors ran against a former congressman.
Coors lost because the former congressman refused
to close ranks and support the winner of the primary.
Other pig-headed conservatives such as the
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners of America campaigned against Pete Coors,
claiming that Coors would not support the second amendment.
That is a bold-faced lie. I have shot Clays with Pete Coors,
He supports the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
He is also on the Executive Board of the Denver Area Council Boy Scouts of America
Bill Owens with his lack of leadership skills
not only lost this election but
lost both houses of the state legislature to the democrat party.
Pete Coors was truly inept. Yet he still won 48% of the vote. Perhaps Colorado voters knew what Ken Salazar was about better than the lamestream media.
And if you claim to be , where did you come from?
And going into the 2006 elections the party is split even deeper than in 2004, thanks to Bill Owens deciding to split Republicans over Ref's C & D.
And going into the 2006 elections the party is split even deeper than in 2004, thanks to Bill Owens deciding to split Republicans over Ref's C & D.
You are absolutely spot-on.
Have you called and emailed Ken Salazar
and called him a Racist and a Murderer for
supporting the murder of 35 million American by abortion?
Salazar just doesn't like uppity Negroes.
Oversimplification. There are several layers of the onion of disbelief to which I've responded:
1. Was sexual harassment a common and uncontrolled problem in the workplace at the time?
2. Could a man qualified for the Court also harass a coworker?
3. Did this particular man cause this particular woman to feel like a sex object in the workplace?
4. Was there sex talk that was an unintentional harassment on his part, perhaps in response to her liking him, but which she felt demeaned by because his remarks were lustful not loving - causing her to talk about it to her girlfriends - conversations that were later dredged up by the Democrats and used as a political tool?
My responses have run down the layers. I agree with most of you that her perceptions of what happened may have been distorted, but still maintain it was not her decision to go to DC to retaliate - she was subpoena'ed, she had a muddled view, but I think some kind of personal stuff went on that he now devoutly wishes he had handled differently.
As AnAmericanMother suggested, after the Democrat handlers worked her over, she may have gone along with their spin of it. Was she lying with intent, or embarrassingly passive and inaccurate? We all have our memories of what took place, and many of them are now sealed under glass. I don't say I'm right; I may be wrong - I didn't say "and I can prove it" - I merely said I believed it, and I've told you why. The fact is, there's a lot of gray area here and we will never know what really happened. My money is on Clock King's posts, 154 and 61.
That said, I'm not slandering the man to say he may have made his coworker feel yucky with inappropriate remarks, and none of that takes away in my mind from his excellence on the Court. I'm glad that he was nominated and appointed - he's been a great asset to the United States and to the conservative movement.
At the same time, I absolutely know that some of the nicest-looking men you think you know are very bad boys around women. He's a human being; it could have happened; and if it happened with him, I'll bet it's not happening any more. I don't see him as a serial sex addict like Clinton, just a fairly typical single guy at the time who probably made some off-color remarks that his political opponents wished to literally make a Federal case out of.
I just don't think she made it all up. Sorry.
LOL!!!
Seek help, it's urgent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.