Posted on 02/27/2011 11:06:25 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Defiant Clarence Thomas fires back
By: Kenneth P. Vogel February 27, 2011 01:22 PM EST
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – his impartiality under attack from liberals because of his attendance at a meeting of conservative donors sponsored by the Koch brothers and his wife’s tea party activism – struck a defiant tone in a Saturday night speech in Charlottesville, Va., telling a friendly audience that he and his wife “believe in the same things” and “are focused on defending liberty.”
Delivering the keynote speech at an annual symposium for conservative law students, Thomas spoke in vague, but ominous, terms about the direction of the country and urged his listeners to “redouble your efforts to learn about our country so that you’re in a position to defend it.”
He also lashed out at his critics, without naming them, asserting they “seem bent on undermining” the High Court as an institution. Such criticism, Thomas warned, could erode the ability of American citizens to fend off threats to their way of life.
“You all are going to be, unfortunately, the recipients of the fallout from that – that there’s going to be a day when you need these institutions to be credible and to be fully functioning to protect your liberties,” he said, according to a partial recording of the speech provided to POLITICO by someone who was at the meeting.
“And that’s long after I’m gone, and that could be either a short or a long time, but you’re younger, and it’s still going to be a necessity to protect the liberties that you enjoy now in this country.”
Thomas spoke at the closing banquet for the symposium, which was sponsored by the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I would rather be held to standards then be a liberal scum bag with no sense of honor or I might add ability. They are doomed to fail.
RE: “Silent Clarence Thomas is silent until he has to speak.”
*******************
Agree — a great man and justice!
Yes. In the context of Thomas it's just another version of the leftist game of good black, bad black. Obama = good black. Thomas = bad black. Van Jones = good black. Condolezza Rice = bad black. Jesse Jackson = good black. Larry Elder = bad black.
I just thought that this might be a good place to remind everyone that Janet Napolitano made her Democrat party bona fides by representing Anita Hill in her accusations against Clarence Thomas during the confirmation hearings.
I think that the Democrats are sure that Thomas is not going to forget that.
bttt
You’ve gotta love the use of the term “ominous” by the Politico hacks.
Guess they find nothing “ominous” in the various speeches by the Dung Beetle in Chief, the man with no records, the man who attended a s*it church led by a septic tank dwelling pastor - but never heard any of the idiot things being said.
The man who cannot speak a word without a prompter, but supposedly wrote books on his life (which, by the way, have been proven to have lies almost as great as one of his speeches).
Politico, examine the pond scum in the White House before you try to pitch slime on a truly accomplished and intelligent African American.
It’s surprising that Justice Thomas is so forthright. I bet he angers millions of liberal Americans.
Napolitano is the proof positive that people in AZ are out of their minds and have been for years.
Thank you for that link...
I believe Alinsky took a page out of "Critical Theory" which has been used against capitalists and conservatives since those of the Frankfurt School developed the notion. Add in a little marching music from GRAMSCI and they have a blueprint for bringing down the West, in particular these United States.
"The Plan" has been and is being implemented to near perfection by engaging a long list of useful idiots, a cultivated class of "victims" of the system. We know them all as group identities of one stripe or another.
All true! I second!
We all can be a Clarence Thomas, it is not beyond any American.
By far the best Jurist on the Supreme Court!
When I think I disagree with Thomas, I read his decision and find that no, in fact - I agree with Justice Thomas but didn’t know it yet.
He really doesn’t need to defend himself. His Supreme Court opinions speak loudly enough for him. He’s there for life, and I thank the Lord for that.
Did The Big Phucking Deal really possess both the sense and the decency to avert his eyes? I’m stunned to hear it. I suppose I would have to see it to believe it; and even if I did, I suppose I would just think that his sunscreen must have run into his eyes.
I hope that it was the stress of that knowledge that pushed Napolitano into Parkinson’s earlier than she had been scheduled to get there. God forgive me for saying such a resoundingly uncharitable thing, but I cannot come to terms with what she did in Waco and in the Elian Gonzalez case. A terrible and terrifying woman!
Ooops. Mea culpa. I’d been thinking of that other fascist pig Janet Reno.
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.