Posted on 8/18/2008, 5:20:50 AM by ricks_place
Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips...
Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.
Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.
So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.
Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander-in-Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Hmmmm.
And what is Obama's qualifications to be president of the United Satates Of America? He really, really wants the job?
WSJ.
Nicely penned editorial.
So Clarence Thomas got in and through Yale Law School with Affirmative Action, but Obama get didn't AA at Harvard?
If you are going to be casting stones at Judge Thomas, Senator Obama, lets see your LSAT's.
Mark Levin: “On Obama’s best day he can’t hold a candle to Thomas’s intelligence.”
Obambi: “What’s that pubic hair doing in my crack pipe?”
Actually, I've wondered about this possibility for a while. Sincerely so.
Despite my agreement with many of Mr. Thomas’s opinions, I would have to agree that his resume at the time of his nomination was not so impressive as to warrant elevation to the Supreme Court. where supposedly the most qualified jurists in the country sit. If you compare his qualifications with that of Scalia or Roberts or any of the other justices that come to mind, he comes up on the short end of things. Indeed, it looks like he was nominated on the dreaded “affirmative action” basis. A white man with such limited credentials would not have been nominated, I think.
But the people who oppose Obama are Democrats, so is the media telling us that Dems are racist?
You must be a fan of David Souter then.
Obviously Hussein is very much in need of a father figure, he seems a bit disrespectful and cocky for a community organizer.
The opposition to Thomas came from people who think that he isn’t really black because of his conservative brain. I think he was nominated for his conservatism, not for his color.
“I think he was nominated for his conservatism, not for his color.”
What I am saying is that I think a white conservative with his credentials would not have been nominated.
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.