# "Dear Justice Thomas, I'm Sorry You're a Shilling Asswipe, Love Anita Hill" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 4, 2007, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448 "2007-10-04T00:36:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/121 "2007-10-06T17:46:55Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Seems more likely he is bitter over having his name justly dragged through the mud. In any event, Ms. Hill does not spend her time wandering the countryside making derogatory comments about Thomas, so if he wants to have people think well of him, perhaps he should not make it a specific point to drag her name unjustly through the mud when she was doing nothing to attack him. [/QUOTE] Seems more likely that he is bitter because, from his perspective, he had his name dragged through the mud. Since he was writing his autobiography, it would have been odd to leave that episode out. The fact that he is giving us his perspective on it should be of no surprise. And while Ms. Hill does not currently “wander the countryside making derogatory comments about Thomas”, she did have her day in the spotlight when she published her book (“Speaking Truth to Power”), in which she brought the whole episode up again. I don’t know for sure that she did the talk-show circuit to promote her book, as Thomas is doing now, but it’s probably a good guess that she did. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/122 "2007-10-06T18:46:26Z")
Thing is, it makes no sense to think that “the liberals” somehow manufactured the whole thing to attack Thomas in order to keep a pro-life justice off the court. Because what would have happened if Thomas had been defeated? Well, GHWBush was still president, and he would have just nominated ANOTHER pro-life candidate, and then another, and another, and another, and so on. There’s just no upside, unless you go the **Shodan** route and think that the democrats’ objective was not to actually affect the makeup of the supreme court, but simply to publically punish an Uncle Tom. Suuuuuure. The big difference between the Lewinsky affair and the Anita Hill thing is what the party-doing-the-attacking has to gain. If Thomas isn’t confirmed, then wait 4 months, someone else will be (and it’s generally thought that the country only has enough energy for one or two confirmation fights… eventually someone will get in just out of fatigue). If Clinton is impeached and removed from office, Gore becomes president, but a horribly crippled president, and it’s a huge black eye for democrats for a long time to come. **Bricker:** Do you believe Anita Hill was telling the truth, yes or no? Why or why not? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/123 "2007-10-06T19:01:37Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Seems more likely he is bitter over having his name justly dragged through the mud. In any event, Ms. Hill does not spend her time wandering the countryside making derogatory comments about Thomas, so if he wants to have people think well of him, perhaps he should not make it a specific point to drag her name unjustly through the mud when she was doing nothing to attack him. [QUOTE=Bricker] Assume, for the sake of argument, that Ms. Hill was entirely untruthful in her testimony and related commentary about Thomas, and that Mr. Thomas was entirely truthful in his statements concerning Hill and his dealings with her. Would that assumption chnage your reaction? [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE] Not to speak for **tom** , but it would certainly change mine. I’d be forced to swap the “justly” and “unjustly.” ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/124 "2007-10-06T19:16:55Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I don’t know how accurate your depiction is. I’m sure some lefty law firms were like that, but it needn’t be a firm fighting for lefty causes, just a law firm with lefties in hiring positions. I have no idea how common or uncommon that was. But what about lefty Congresscritters? Surely there were plenty of those around. He wasn’t top of his class, but a middle of the pack Black guy from Yale Law School must’ve stood out in a crowd in the 60s or early 70s. [/QUOTE] OTOH, lefty law frims and institutions probably have tons of minority candidates coming through their doors every day. How many of these candidates would bother with looking for work with right-wing conservatives? So when Thomas came through the door, he would _really_ stand out. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/125 "2007-10-06T19:48:59Z")
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim] OTOH, lefty law frims and institutions probably have tons of minority candidates coming through their doors every day. How many of these candidates would bother with looking for work with right-wing conservatives? So when Thomas came through the door, he would _really_ stand out. [/QUOTE] Not back then. Not Black lawyers from Yale. This was, what, 30 years ago? And keep in mind that Danforth isn’t a right-wing Republican. He’s generally considered a moderate, and although he is an ordained minister, he has been quite vocal in his distaste for how the GOP has pandered to the Religious Right. From an editorial he wrote a few years ago in the NYT: > [@](#): > > [Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/opinion/17danforth.html?ex=1276660800&en=25349ae86c8966e1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) > By JOHN C. DANFORTH > Published: June 17, 2005 > > IT would be an oversimplification to say that America’s culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions. > > \ > > By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God’s truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth. We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God’s work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today’s politics. > > For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours. Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord’s table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love. Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics. He’s also the author of the book “Faith and Politics: How the ‘Moral Values’ Debate Divides America and How to Move Forward Together.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2007, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/126 "2007-10-06T22:03:44Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Other justices, who see the law as an instrument of social change, may seem like a better choice for you… as long as they agree with the kind of social change you want. [/QUOTE] When you say stuff like that, it always sounds to me as though you’re trivializing the latter half of the sentence. Well, of COURSE I want someone whose brand of social change is the kind I want. Duh! In choosing a supreme court judge, my goal is not to have a keen supreme court. My goal is to have a better world. I want people who value principle over precedent, but not just any old principle: I want people who value the same principles I value. That seems like a no-brainer to me. And yes, of course folks with different principles will want the same thing, only different. That, too, seems like a no-brainer. Resolving this conflict between us by trying to keep principle out of the equation seems to me barely better than resolving it through a game of rock-paper-scissors. I want my principles to win, goddammit. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/127 "2007-10-07T01:00:29Z")
To follow up on what **LHod** said, I’d add that it’s obvious that different well-meaning Justices can reach very different conclusions about the same case before them, and that those principles might have something to do with it. If I believe _Roe v. Wade_ should continue to be the law of the land, why shouldn’t I advocate for more Justices of the sort who, on a principled basis, will reaffirm it, rather than for those who will, on an equally principled basis I’m sure, vote to overturn it? Like Daniel, I consider this a no-brainer. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/128 "2007-10-07T01:26:10Z")
[QUOTE=RTFirefly] If I believe _Roe v. Wade_ should continue to be the law of the land, why shouldn’t I advocate for more Justices of the sort who, on a principled basis, will reaffirm it, rather than for those who will, on an equally principled basis I’m sure, vote to overturn it? [/QUOTE] Because there are those who find fault with it divorced from any personal principles (e.g., Justice Ginsberg). And there are those who hold the apparently foolish position that a Justice’s job is not to apply personal principles but to uphold the Constitution, as it is written, as it was ratified and amended. Personal beliefs are a filter that makes this difficult for all of us humans, of course. That doesn’t make it a lost cause. “But that’s not what I’d prefer” isn’t a valid reason to ignore text or create “rights.” The fact that a Justice can do whatever he wants, by and large, doesn’t mean he should. I personally accept the fact that our democratic process allows for laws that I find distasteful but constitutional. That’s just the way it is. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/129 "2007-10-07T01:27:06Z")
[QUOTE=Sampiro] It may just be wishful thinking, but perhaps after years of being a relatively media shy and completely above board law professor, could this be the “off with the clip ons and off with the slip ons, I’m going for your hair, bitch!” moment for Anita? AH please let it be let it be let it be… [/QUOTE] [Anita Hill wrote an Op Ed piece for the New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/opinion/02hill.html) last Tuesday. > [@](#): > > ON Oct. 11, 1991, I testified about my experience as an employee of Clarence Thomas’s at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. > > I stand by my testimony. > > Justice Thomas has every right to present himself as he wishes in his new memoir, “My Grandfather’s Son.” He may even be entitled to feel abused by the confirmation process that led to his appointment to the Supreme Court. > > But I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me. … > > The question of whether Clarence Thomas belongs on the Supreme Court is no longer on the table — it was settled by the Senate back in 1991. But questions remain about how we will resolve the kinds of issues my testimony exposed. My belief is that in the past 16 years we have come closer to making the resolution of these issues an honest search for the truth, which, after all, is at the core of all legal inquiry. My hope is that Justice Thomas’s latest fusillade will not divert us from that path. Ms. Hill is a class act, I would say. She makes reference to those who have investigated her claims. The key source in that regard is the book by the Wall Street Journal and New Yorker reporters, [Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas by Jane Meyer and Jill Abramson](http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Justice-Selling-Clarence-Thomas/dp/0452274990/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1882536-9930040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191720103&sr=8-1). Unlike David Brock, that pair has not subsequently claimed that their facts were fabricated. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/130 "2007-10-07T01:30:19Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] And there are those who hold the apparently foolish position that a Justice’s job is not to apply personal principles but to uphold the Constitution, as it is written, as it was ratified and amended. [/QUOTE] On the contrary, I think that desiring to uphold the constitution is equivalent to desiring a personal principle: belief in the desirability of a really good system of government is belief in a principle. It’s principles all the way down, man. It’s just that I see a good system of government as a means to an end, not an end of itself. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/131 "2007-10-07T02:09:52Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] When you say stuff like that, it always sounds to me as though you’re trivializing the latter half of the sentence. Well, of COURSE I want someone whose brand of social change is the kind I want. Duh! [/QUOTE] I don’t think that’s a “duh!” at all…the Supreme Court shouldn’t be an instrument of social change…not the kind you want, not the kind I want, not the kind anyone wants. It’s not their role. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/132 "2007-10-07T02:15:01Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] I don’t think that’s a “duh!” at all…the Supreme Court shouldn’t be an instrument of social change…not the kind you want, not the kind I want, not the kind anyone wants. It’s not their role. [/QUOTE] Perhaps we could invent an institution that should be an instrument of social change. We could call it “Congress”, and we could elect the members of that institution for a limited term so that they are accountable to the people for the type of social change they advocate. Nah, that’s crazy talk. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/133 "2007-10-07T02:30:52Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Perhaps we could invent an institution that should be an instrument of social change. We could call it “Congress”, and we could elect the members of that institution for a limited term so that they are accountable to the people for the type of social change they advocate. Nah, that’s crazy talk. [/QUOTE] No, wait…I think you just might be onto something! It’s weird to me that people would want a tiny group of people who they have no control over appointing and who they have no means of removal other than death to be their preferred instrument of social change. It’s such a high-risk proposition. ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/134 "2007-10-07T02:55:52Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Perhaps we could invent an institution that should be an instrument of social change. We could call it “Congress”, and we could elect the members of that institution for a limited term so that they are accountable to the people for the type of social change they advocate. Nah, that’s crazy talk. [/QUOTE] [hijack] I’m not so sure **John Mace** , ideally that would be the case. But wouldn’t it easier to let the court’s decide the issues? It’s a win-win–either way you can pontificate by speaking for or against the decision depending on which way the wind blows with respect to one’s constituency. So congress is lazy–lazy like a fox, I say! I need clarification though. Doesn’t Congress have the statute authority to restrict a court’s jurisdiction? If so, wouldn’t this be a more efficacious process of limiting “judicial activism”? Feel free to enlighten me. We now return to our regularly scheduled skewering at the BBQ Pit [/highjack] ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/135 "2007-10-07T03:05:52Z")
I see. So the _Brown_ decision is regrettable, the imposition of justice upon the unwilling. Not prudent. And when, exactly, would black people have advanced their equality by imposing political power they did not possess? Our system utterly _failed_ these people, its citizens, the enfranchisement that is its fundamental energy was not theirs. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and neither is it Holy Writ, it can suffer a bit of bending without snapping. Heaven knows it has been twisted enough to serve the interests of the mighty, why then is it a sacrilege to bend it on behalf of the worthy? Have we not recovered from this desecration? Indeed, have we not positively _benefited_ by this? I daresay. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/136 "2007-10-07T08:24:49Z")
Another insight: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07rich.html?\_r=1&oref=slogin](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) \*\*Nobody Knows the Lynchings He’s Seen \*\* (excerpt) > [@](#): > > …In Mr. Thomas’s account, he stuck a 15-cent price sticker on his diploma after potential employers refused to hire him. By his reckoning, a Yale Law graduate admitted through affirmative action, as he was, would automatically be judged inferior to whites with the same degree. The “60 Minutes” correspondent, Steve Kroft, maintained that Mr. Thomas had no choice but to settle for a measly $10,000-a-year job (in 1974 dollars) in Missouri, working for the state’s attorney general, John Danforth. > > What “60 Minutes” didn’t say was that the post was substantial — an assistant attorney general — and that Mr. Danforth was himself a Yale Law graduate. As Mr. Danforth told the story during the 1991 confirmation hearings and in his own book last year, he traveled to New Haven to recruit Mr. Thomas when he was still a third-year law student. That would be before he even received that supposedly worthless degree… Perhaps someone more familiar with Sen Danforth (or his memoirs) can advise as to what might have been his motivation. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/137 "2007-10-07T12:56:17Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] On the contrary, I think that desiring to uphold the constitution is equivalent to desiring a personal principle: belief in the desirability of a really good system of government is belief in a principle. It’s principles all the way down, man. It’s just that I see a good system of government as a means to an end, not an end of itself. [/QUOTE] Yes, of course, but that’s kind of a silly point. The one principle I see in play is the one that recommends that we rely on legislators to establish law and on justices to apply the law as it was written. The collective principles beyond that are an amorphous cloud subject to the biases and sensibilities of whomever is appointed at the moment. The Constitution ought not be treated so cavalierly, not for “justice,” and certainly not for convenience, IMO. So, yes, the notion that _all other_ principles (as we’re discussing them) ought not be in play is a principle itself. So what? And I too see a good system of government as a means to an end too. I just accept the fact that a process that denies such judicial abuse (or ought to) serves the greater long-term goal, even when it does not permit what I want in a given circumstance. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/138 "2007-10-07T13:10:49Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] I see. So the _Brown_ decision is regrettable, the imposition of justice upon the unwilling. Not prudent. [/QUOTE] Are you arguing that this decision was poorly argued? I’m no expert, but I have not typically heard this decision as one that created a right not explicit in the Constitution–in this case, equal protection as noted in the 14th amendment. Even Bork agreed with it, as I recall. But the fact that it created social change was coincidental. I don’t want that to sound as if I trivialize such an effect, which was clearer timely, just and tremendously important. The point is not that Justices ought to avoid social change, the point is that such a change should be irrelevant to their decision (as we’re discussing, that is). So I think your argument appeals to popular sentiment but misses the point. Again, no constitutional scholar I. And it is a given that even a good faith attempt to remain true to the text of the Constitution may not always be fully successful–we’re all human. But that ought to be a Justice’s goal, right? ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/139 "2007-10-07T13:25:05Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Are you arguing that this decision was poorly argued? I’m no expert, but I have not typically heard this decision as one that created a right not explicit in the Constitution–in this case, equal protection as noted in the 14th amendment. Even Bork agreed with it, as I recall. But the fact that it created social change was coincidental. I don’t want that to sound as if I trivialize such an effect, which was clearer timely, just and tremendously important. The point is not that Justices ought to avoid social change, the point is that such a change should be irrelevant to their decision (as we’re discussing, that is). So I think your argument appeals to popular sentiment but misses the point. Again, no constitutional scholar I. And it is a given that even a good faith attempt to remain true to the text of the Constitution may not always be fully successful–we’re all human. But that ought to be a Justice’s goal, right? [/QUOTE] I agree with this. I am not an expert on the Constitution, either, but from everything I’ve read, I definitely think that _Brown_ was a decision more solidly based in the Constitution than, say, _Roe_ was. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448/140 "2007-10-07T14:03:09Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] I see. So the _Brown_ decision is regrettable, the imposition of justice upon the unwilling. Not prudent. [/quote] Where did I say that? > [@](#): > > And when, exactly, would black people have advanced their equality by imposing political power they did not possess? Our system utterly failed these people, its citizens, the enfranchisement that is its fundamental energy was not theirs. If you study the Court, you will see that they rarely get too ahead of where the country is going. “Brown” is overrated. It was the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (an act of Congress) that was the turning point in civil rights for Blacks in the US. Until then, Blacks were still riding at the back of the bus, eating at different counters, sitting up in the balcony at movies, and disenfranchised in much of the South. “Brown” didn’t fix any of those things. Sure, it was an important step, but anyone who studies history knows that the the major civil rights marches, protests and actions came after “Brown”, not before. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-justice-thomas-im-sorry-youre-a-shilling-asswipe-love-anita-hill/421448.md?page=8)