Posted on 05/05/2003 5:47:57 AM PDT by kcordell
Students object to Thomas as speaker
By MELANIE HORTON Published , May 02, 2003, 12:00:01 PM EDT
The controversy surrounding the School of Law's commencement speaker has been reignited in recent weeks as the graduation date draws near.
Last week, a petition was circulated around the law school questioning the methods used to choose Clarence Thomas, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice and Georgia native, as the commencement speaker, said Donald Wilkes, a law school professor.
"The petition was circulated by the students," he said. "It was signed by 11 law professors last Tuesday, and it was signed by 50 students between Thursday and the last day of classes."
He said the petition objected to the commencement speaker selection process and to its outcome.
David Shipley, dean of the law school, said he was unhappy with the timing of the petition because it was a distraction for students who were preparing for finals.
Only three students were involved in the selection of Thomas: Josh Belinfante, the third-year student class president; Megan Jones, the third-year student class vice president; and Megan Jones, the second-year student class president.
Belinfante said he responded to the petition by writing an open letter to students and faculty.
"The drafters of the petition never discussed the process with either myself or Megan Jones and Rebecca Franklin," he said. "They made presumptions and accusations without talking to us," he said.
Shipley said he felt the petition was misdirected.
"Criticism of the decision should be directed at me, not the students," he said. "Some years, there hasn't been any student input."
Shipley said the newly elected officers proposed a speaker selection process involving the leaders of the 28 law school student organizations.
"The final decision will still be with the dean," he said.
"The vast majority are happy to have a Supreme Court justice, especially a justice from Georgia, speak (at commencement)," Shipley said.
Wilkes, one of the most outspoken opponents of Thomas, said he will not attend the commencement ceremony, scheduled for
10 a.m. May 17 at the North Campus Quadrangle.
"I, at the time of commencement, will be giving a protest speech at the Tate Student Center Plaza," Wilkes said. "I will express my opposition to Justice Thomas and his very poor record of protecting our rights in this country."
Wilkes submitted a nine-page, single-spaced open letter to the School of Law faculty, staff and students Feb. 18 outlining what he calls Thomas' "deplorable record as a Supreme Court justice."
But, Katie Willcox, a law school student, said Thomas speaking at commencement is an honor, regardless of his politics.
"The point many miss, I think, is that he will likely speak on his path to the Supreme Court, overcoming great odds to achieve," she said. "(He) will urge us all to go out and do great things, exactly what a graduation speaker should do."
I stopped funding my university a long time ago. They are no longer institutions of higher learning but instruments for leftist infiltration.
Despite what others say, I think boycotts are the only answer.
I received this nine-page, single-spaced letter in my e-mail.
Here is a portion:
"And who is this man the students and faculty will be forced to listen to if they attend the ceremony? Justice Thomas is a reactionary judicial activist–a right-wing extremist pretending to be a neutral and impartial judge. His judicial philosophy amounts to "a new, aggressive, and repressive judicial activism." Niles, Clarence Thomas: The First Ten Years Looking For Consistency, 10 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol'y & L. 327, 332 (2002). This man's judicial philosophy embodies the right-wing extremist agenda. He has a narrow view of the basic rights of Americans and usually votes to denigrate and attenuate those rights.
In cases involving criminal procedure, civil rights, civil liberties, the rights of prisoners, and the writ of habeas corpus he almost always sides with the government and rejects the claims of individuals that their rights were violated. "Thomas has . . . been a consistent member of the Court's most conservative wing since his first term. . . . If judicial liberalism is defined in the traditional fashion as support for individuals' rights in disputes with the government, Thomas stands out as a strong conservative in any analysis. . . . Justice Thomas has established a consistent and predictable voting record as a dependable member of the Court's most conservative ing. . . . [H]e articulates . . . a vision of constitutional interpretation that . . . advances his preferences for . . . diminution of constitutional protections for individuals." Smith, Clarence Thomas: A Distinctive Justice, 28 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1, 2, 28 (1997). He believes that the role of the courts in protecting individual rights is very limited. He not infrequently expresses an inclination to overrule landmark pro-human rights Supreme Court precedents. He doesn't think much of the writ of habeas corpus.
Indeed, in O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U. S. 432, 447 (1995), in a dissenting opinion, he went so far as to assert: "We have ample cause to be wary of the writ [of habeas corpus!]." I can recall only one case where Justice Thomas has ever voted in favor of granting relief to a habeas corpus petitioner, and in that case Justice Thomas, along with Justice Scalia, took a narrower view than the Court of the petitioner's rights and only concurred in part and in the judgment. Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U. S. 433 (1997).
He is shrilly pro-death penalty. He "expresses little sympathy for the plight of the incarcerated." Note, Lasting Stigma: Affirmative Action and Clarence Thomas's Prisoners' Rights Jurisprudence, 112 Harv. L. Rev. 1331, 1341 (1999). He is "the first justice to criticize, even indirectly, the ruling in Brown [v. Board of Education] . . ." Id. at 1348 n. 50.
Furthermore, some of Justice Thomas's opinions rejecting claims of violations of rights are written a mocking, scornful tone inappropriate in a judge but typical of a right-wing extremist.
In deciding individual rights cases Justice Thomas almost always votes the same as the two other right-wing extremists serving on the Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia. See, e.g., Wilkins, Worthington, Chow, Chow & Becker, Supreme Court Voting Behavior: 2000 Term, 29 Hastings Const. L. Q. 247 (2002) (tables of voting patterns of Supreme Court justices since 1991 term). Justice Thomas is therefore one of the principal reasons why tragically in recent years the Supreme Court has been implementing a counterrevolution in criminal procedure and individual rights–a counterrevolution which has narrowed the legal rights and remedies of Americans against government, enlarged the power of the state over the individual, and transformed the role of the Court from that of the keeper of the nation's conscience to that of a cost-benefit analysis calculating machine."
A former prosecutor like Bugliosi has as much knowledge of constitutional law as your typical tax attorney.
Yes - sounds really bad until you go back to the beginning and how Gore's team seemed to have already set it up with the Florida Supreme Court to have them hand him the Presidency in spite of it's contradiction to existing laws and the facts...I guess the left-wingers will be only too happy to have the perspective taken away from their claims/whines/moans that they couldn't pull a fast one with the highest office in the land. Doesn't seem to stop them from trying some more - I get the feeling that they know that they are on slippery ground and have to make some outrageous attempts to subvert the system even more if they want to survive as a viable (take that with a grain of salt) party..
That Megan Jones sure is one busy little, um, beaver...
SOME of the students.
Actually, this doesn't need a barf alert because the whole thing reflects badly on the weenies who are protesting. Every time Clarence Thomas is attacked like this, he gets to take the high road and his message travels a little further.
It figures. Thanks for the heads up.
I noticed he has spent a lot of time in France.
The lynchings continue. Pathetic.
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.