Posted on 10/15/2007 6:07:19 AM PDT by kellynla
WITH THE RELEASE of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' memoir, "My Grandfather's Son," all of the old smears directed against him since his confirmation hearings 16 years ago are once again being trotted out.
That he's "incompetent." That he's "not qualified." That the only reason he was appointed is because he's black. In other words, that he's a product of affirmative action or, more precisely, an "affirmative action hire."
Last week, for instance, liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson wrote: "I believe in affirmative action, but I have to acknowledge there are arguments against it. One of the more cogent is the presence of Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court."
Robinson's comment echoes many previous attacks. In 2000, for example, Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen -- another liberal who has written in support of affirmative action -- declared that Thomas' "judicial resume was mediocre; he was chosen because he was conservative and black, an affirmative action hire by an administration that eschewed affirmative action."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
It’s clear that Liberals support affirmative action in the placement of blacks in higher positions of business and/or authority...unless of course they have conservative views.
Thomas wasn’t nominated because he was black, or at least that wasn’t the primary reason. He was nominated because he was qualified for the job....and that’s a fact that Liberals simply can’t wrap their twisted, pea-brains around.
“This is one of the tragic legacies of racial preferences — that the achievements of black people in the professional world will always be suspect, and not just to blacks who benefit from such preferences. In the minds even of liberals, blacks will always be thought of as “affirmative action hires” no matter how bright or qualified they are.”
It takes 30 years for liberals to realize what conservatives know from day one. Its good to see this editorial in a left wing rag. I’m sure they will take all kinds of grief for it.
This writer better be careful. He’s well on the way to the awakening that precurses a liberal’s change to conservatism.
Was Eugene Robinson made an editor of the Washington Post on his merit, or because he’s black?
And yet... And yet I have not heard a single word from the Left about that one true affirmative-action nominee to the Supreme Court, Sandy Day O’Connor, and her complete lack of qualifications.
I have been under the impression that he was NOT an affirmative action Yale student, but that the presence of affirmative action would always taint him as such. Does anyone know the real story on this?
I just finished read his book . If you haven’t bought it do so its a great book.
Actually, the Dems demanded that Bush nominate a black for SCOTUS. They demanded that a black replace a black, for diversity sake. They just did not want him to nominate a conservative black. They did everything they could to derail Thomas, including leaking the unproven allegations of Anita Hill.
Thomas, Clarence (2007). My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir, Harper, ISBN 0-06-056555-1.
The Dem machine of the 90's did so much to elevate our political discourse, didn't it?
a view into the disjointed mind of an all-out leftitst. Hypocrisy so intense, it collapses in on itself like a black hole.
Yes, that's it: antimatter.
Ummm, it just happens that Justice O'Connor holds an M.A. in Economics, received her LLB from Sanford Law School (where she edited the Stanford Law Review), graduated near the top of her class (where she briefly dated future Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist), served Deputy Attorney of San Mateo County, served as Assistant Attorney General of Arizona from 1965–1969, was elected to nearly a decade of service in the Arizona State Senate, and her colleagues elevated her to the position of House Majority Leader, the first ever woman to hold the post. She was then elected judge of Maricopa County Superior Court, and was subsequently appointed to the Arizona branch of the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1979.
If Justice O'Conner's Ivy league credentials and extensive experience in major offices in ALL THREE branches of government don't "qualify" her to serve on the Supreme Court, I'd hate to know what kind of judge is "qualified" enough in your mind. Her resume is alot longer than several the current justices on the court.
Perhaps you are confusing her with woman Bush briefly tapped to replace her, Harriet Miers. The highest office she "served" was as chairman of the Texas Lottery Comission (appointed by then Governor George W. Bush, naturally)
Ummm, it just happens that Justice O'Connor holds an M.A. in Economics, received her LLB from Sanford Law School (where she edited the Stanford Law Review), graduated near the top of her class (where she briefly dated future Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist), served Deputy Attorney of San Mateo County, served as Assistant Attorney General of Arizona from 1965–1969, was elected to nearly a decade of service in the Arizona State Senate, and her colleagues elevated her to the position of House Majority Leader, the first ever woman to hold the post. She was then elected judge of Maricopa County Superior Court, and was subsequently appointed to the Arizona branch of the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1979.
If Justice O'Conner's Ivy league credentials and extensive experience in major offices in ALL THREE branches of government don't "qualify" her to serve on the Supreme Court, I'd hate to know what kind of judge is "qualified" enough in your mind. Her resume is a lot longer than several of the current justices on the court.
Perhaps you are confusing her with the woman Bush briefly tapped to replace her, Harriet Miers. The highest office she "served" was as chairman of the Texas Lottery Commission (appointed by then Governor George W. Bush, naturally)
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.