Archive for ‘Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’

August 20, 2008

HOUSE NEGRO DOES EXIST: OBAMA ON CLARENCE THOMAS

by MullOverThis

Obama definitely has audacity. 

Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain joined host, Pastor Rick Warren, at the Saddleback church for an interview aired on CNN.  Both presumptive Presidential nominees answered the same questions at separate times, one-on-one with Rick Warren, in front of  thousands.   During his interview, Obama sat in a church and justified why he is in support of gay marriage, homosexual rights, and abortion–while declaring that he is a Christian and Jesus Christ saved him by grace.  Watching the Christian rationalize baby killings because to determine when life begins is above Obama’s “pay grade” (his own words) is enough audacity.  But, there is more. 

Obama unleashed more of his glaring introspective thoughts when asked which United States Supreme Court justices would he not have appointed.  Obama didn’t hesitate or stutter.  Clarence Thomas. Here is the reasoning Obama stated, “”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 interpretations of a lot of the Constitution.”  This, off course, is coming from a former editor of the Harvard Law Review and a corporate attorney.  Obama has wet his feet in the practical legal and political world compared to the Senators who were on the confirmation committee and thinks he is qualified to judge the competence of Justice Clarence Thomas’ jurisprudence.  Interesting.  Especially from a man who wants to be President of the United States, with only one full-term as a US Senator under his belt, and eight years as an Illinois Senator.  Compared to his colleagues and competition, Obama needs to sit down and say “sike” (slang for I was only playing) by his own standards. 

Here are some facts:  At the time of Justice Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court appointment, he had already been confirmed by the US Senate (many of whom have law degrees and legal backgrounds) for appointment to the US Court of Appeals for the  D.C. Circuit, one of the most honorable court appointments in the land.  Thomas wasn’t appointed to the Supreme Court from being a traffic court judge, or a scripted court television judge.  Prior to the Circuit Court appointment, Thomas-a Yale law graduate- also worked in an attorney general’s office, was an Assistant Secretary of Education, and was the  CHAIRMAN of the  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for almost eight years.  Justice Clarence Thomas already had experience as a jurist on one of the most esteemed courts of the land when he was appointed, yet ankle-deep Obama cited Thomas wasn’t strong enough. 

So then, we are to believe that Obama is strong enough to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, while Thomas wasn’t a strong enough jurist or legal thinker to be onemember of the highest court in the judicial branch of our government.    Obama better be careful before his house negro mentality yields trouble for him during the rest of his campaign, and if elected President, when he gets into office.  He has obviously been in the house so long that his vision is tainted.  Obama’s candidacy alone suggests that he sees himself as capable and his experience on the Presidential track is not even comparable to that of Thomas’ on the judicial track at the time of Thomas’ appointment to the US Supreme Court.  Obama’s grossly skewed assessment of Thomas is not only condescending, but completely inappropriate in light of the increasing hostile climate (based upon beliefs that Black people are unqualified and given free-bees) pro-White extremists have towards Black Americans because of our insurgence in politics, education, business, ownership, religion and otherwise.  Hopefully Obama’s deep musings will reveal his own audacity to try to discredit the qualifications of the only Black justice on the Supreme Court.

 

With the God of the Heavens as my judge, after writing the above post, I searched for other opinions on this topic, and found the following link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121901817146948231.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/18/conservatives-slam-obamas-answer-about-supreme-court-justices-at-saddleback-f

http://judicialnetwork.com/cgi-data/press_releases/files/70.shtml

 

 

March 20, 2008

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS & ANITA HILL: 17 YEARS LATER

by MullOverThis

In 1991, now Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was the first staunchly conservative Republican African-American Supreme Court appointee. Aforetime, African-American people had enjoyed at least one honorable brother on the bench in the person of Justice Thurgood Marshall. Marshall was instrumental in forging the reversal of Jim Crow laws and securing civil rights for African-Americans in this country. Racism was still bleeding. During Thomas’ confirmation hearings, he firmly withstood racist questioning which presupposed that Thomas was not as intellectual as his Caucasion counterparts. He berated the confirmation committee by calling the process a “…circus…”, “…sick…”, and “…a high tech lynching”. Any African-American who has been in upper echelon academia, business or intellectual settings can probably agree with how Thomas must have felt. Regardless of independent achievements, folks oftentimes think that some other factors must be at play to explain the brillance of an accomplished African American.

So, when the charges of sexual harrassment were levied against Thomas, this too came into the backdrop of lynching another “uppity” negro. Anita Hill’s credibility, professional experience, record of the incidents, and testimony was heard, but did not trump Thomas’ repeated denial of all allegations. Although I was much younger back then, I remember thinking why would this woman tarnish her reputation to lie against this man? What amount of money, if she were bribed, could be worth the stigma? She is a well-established professional woman with much to lose. Thomas denied the allegations. Hill becomes questionably known as a liar who Democrats conjured to thwart Thomas’ appointment. Sexism was bleeding too.

Although most sexual harrassment and assaults against women are not baseless, the minute incidence that is proven to be false becomes the concentration. Experts play on this common belief which serves to discourage women from opening their mouths, cause “no one will believe me anyway”. Hill’s detailed allegations caused an upsurgence of support from women’s rights organizations and brought the treatment of sexual harrassment in the workplace to the limelight.

Thomas was appointed, and has been relatively quiet during most questioning sessions before the Supreme Court. While his silence may be construed as that of an inferior mind, Thomas has bluntly stated that he need not compete with the other super-verbose justices who routinely excavate all the necessary information for issuing a judgment anyway. He does not engage in needless calisthenics to prove his competency. Supreme Court decisions written by Thomas prove that not only has he been competent, but also has been stellar at succintly writing decisions.

Yet, almost 17 years later, Thomas’ career thus far is not only clouded as being one who waited for Scalia to know how to think, but also wonders whether he has every really been truthful. In Thomas’ 2007 book “My Grandfather’s Son”, he dubbs Anita Hill as “most traitorous adversary”. Hill, currently a law professor, maintains her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee during Thomas’ appointment hearings were true. Hill penned, “Speaking Truth to Power” (Doubleday, 1997) which gives more information about her experiences with working for Justice Clarence Thomas. Hill has proven to be a gem in academia.   Her testimony caused the barometer examining sexual discrimination in the workplace to prescribe greater scrutiny and procedural safeguards today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://i.abcnews.com/GMA/Story?id=3678152&page=1