Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TornadoAlley3
I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas

He says he wasn't 'intellectual enough'. What an *SS!!!

485 posted on 08/16/2008 5:33:57 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies ]


To: kcvl

Bambi’s never read a single thing Justice Thomas has ever written.

The distance between the intellects of Thomas and Bambi is the distance between Heaven and hell.


504 posted on 08/16/2008 5:35:37 PM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard (i hate this election.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies ]

To: kcvl

I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas
He says he wasn’t ‘intellectual enough’. What an *SS!!!

He is “intellectual enough” to understand in a republican democracy actions by the government, including by the judicial branch, should be in a form that is understood by all citizens. From a brilliant interview by Rush around Christmas:

RUSH: You know, many people are unaware of your writings on the Supreme Court because most Americans probably don’t have the time or inclination to read opinions, and that would be both the dissent and the affirmative opinions and so forth. But I read yours, and they’re remarkably simple to understand. You just talked about liking and enjoying very much working with young kids who need help. You have spent a lot of time trying to explain things to kids who are illiterate. Now, that has probably helped you be able, in your life, to take the complex and make it understandable, and you even apply that in your writings on the court.

JUSTICE THOMAS: I think so often, Rush, when we get in these positions, we tend to condescend to the rest of the population and our fellow citizens. I don’t do that. I grew up in circumstances that weren’t the best economically or the best educationally for the people around me. I never went back home and condescended to them. They are my family; they’re my neighbors; they’re human beings. So what I try to do — every day, wherever I am — is to look at that person, no matter what they’re doing, and to see a fellow human being. So, in writing opinions, you are trying to take something, if it’s complicated, you’re trying to explain it in a way that as many people as possible can understand it. You’re making their Constitution and their laws accessible to them. We talk about “accessibility” in terms of people with, say, disabilities in a wheelchair where a curb is like the Great Wall of China if someone is in a wheelchair. Well, you can use language and writing about the court or about the Constitution that sort of puts a Great Wall of China between them and their Constitution. My idea is simply to be able to explain it to all of my fellow citizens.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100107/content/01125106.guest.html


610 posted on 08/16/2008 5:48:55 PM PDT by keepitreal ("I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message. . . until I don't.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson