Wasn’t Thomas confirmed by a Democratically controlled Senate?
Umm…yes…right…of course. Thanks for the correction, John.
Regards,
MR
This may or may not have been her intention, but her first statment on this thread calls Bush a bigot with no attempt at qualification. This usually (but not exclusively) is a statment made on racial matters. Even in a later post, the mention of Bush’s policy on gays and hate-crimes legislation was one of a list of policies evilbeth found disagreement with. I didn’t get a connection that “bigot” was referring only to this particular position. Maybe it was, but it is not cut-and-dried from the posts. Even so, I think opposition to the policy does not necessarily equate to bigotry.
My comments on the litmus test were of a general nature. I just used evilbeth’s post as a springboard for something I find hypocritical with many on the left. I apologize for giving the impression that this was a specific point of contention with her post. Anyway, I don’t want to give her too hard of a time; after all, she was the only one I know of around here who wished me a Happy Birthday yesterday! 
I’m actuall somewhat surprised by Altman. This is a man who created one of the most sympathetic portraits of Nixon in the movie “Secret Honor”. It’s really quite good. Someone like Baldwin I would expect this crap from, but really, what does he think his threat will acomplish?
Nor should they have, particularly with Thomas. That man is easily the least qualified, most dubiously competent justice in recent memory–you have to go back to Clement Haynsworth, IMO, even to find a nominee as ill-suited as Clarence Thomas for the High Court. Plus he had some serious personal problems (not the Anita Hill thing, but his full-blown persecution complex). Strange Justice, by Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson, is a decent review of Thomas’s credentials for the bench.
Clarence Thomas had a “persecution complex”? You mean that he believed the Left was out to get him?
Gosh, where would he get a crazy idea like that? After all, the liberals were so fair and non-partisan during the Bork hearings. You’d NEVER see liberals searching through video store records to find out what movies Judge Bork had rented!
Okay, okay, bad example. Liberal Democrats WOULD do that. But they’d NEVER have the hypocritical gall to insist afterward that they were doing so because Bork was a threat to “privacy rights.”
Uh… okay, that’s ANOTHER bad example. The point is, American liberals are highly principled people who evaluate each nominee on his own merits, and would NEVER turn a confirmation hearing into a circus by vowing to “Bork” Clarence THomas and digging for dirt on his sexual peccadilloes.
Well… okay, that’s ANOTHER bad example.
But obviously, NOBODY was out to get CLarence THomas, NOBODY was trying to derail his nomination on partisan grounds, NOBODY was trying to discredit or humiliate him, and if he says they WERE, well that just proves he’s a paranoid loony like Gadarene says.
Hey, astorian? It really helps to know what the heck you’re talking about before you condescend to someone else. You’ve got a pronounced tendency to be nasty rather than civil in debate threads–especially when you feel that your beliefs are being impugned–and frankly, it’s beginning to wear a bit thin. After your bout of drive-by misperception on the “Liberal” Supreme Court Justices thread (linked above), I’m surprised you’d respond at all to a post of mine regarding the Court, much less in such a mocking, derisive manner. One would think you’d have learned by now.
The “persecution complex” to which I refer has nothing to do with Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings and the partisan battlegrounds drawn therein; if what I’ve read is true, it was made manifest far earlier. It might be worthwhile to–gasp–check out the book I cited before jumping to utterly unreasonable conclusions about the intent and meaning of my post. That way, we can debate statements I’ve actually made, rather than partisan straw men you pull out of thin air. I can understand, though, that addressing a post on its own merits can detract from the kind of Manichean polemic you like to practice; just don’t ideologue 'round me, okay? (In other words, what in Loki’s name does Bork’s confirmation have to do with my post about Clarence Thomas??)
For the record, though I disagree with him in nearly every instance, I have a great deal of respect for Justice Scalia. He’s a smart, smart man, and surely worthy of the bench. I’m saying this to show you that I don’t mirror your reflexive “liberal-conservative/bad-good” dichotomy. I don’t have a problem with Thomas because he’s a Republican, I have a problem with him because he’s supremely unqualified and minimally competent. If you disagree with this, I’d be happy to evaluate the statements. I’m enough of a student of politics in general–and the Supreme Court in particular–to understand the importance of context and circumstance when pronouncing judgment on events and individuals. I’d never make the blanket generalizations of which your post implicitly accuses me.
John Corrado says:
John, I think the word you were looking for is “unconscionable”. And remember, spelling gripes beget spelling gripes.
Gaudere’s Law: “Any post made to point out spelling or grammar mistakes will invariably contain spelling or grammar mistakes.”
hey xeno,
Look, he can’t have it both ways (stop it, I mean politically!). He wrote the book (Earth and the Baaaaaaahlance) and he clearly spelled out his beliefs, and goals. So are we to believe his convictions or not? If not, why should we believe any other promises this guy makes? (Like you, I will stipulate that none of their campaign promises are worth a damn, and I’m not sili enough to listen to any of them). I just think Mr. Gory is more dangerous than Mr. Shrub. Have you looked at that sucker (Gore) recently? Sheesh.
sili
Up front, I will state that, while Clarence Thomas was a qualified nominee for the Supreme Court, he did NOT have the kind of distinguished record or years of experience that most nominees have had. To put it crudely, there is NO chance whatsoever that a white man with the same credentials as Clarence Thomas would ever be appointed to the Supreme Court.
Nonetheless, President Bush was in a bit of a bind. The seat vacated by Thurgood Marshall was and is regarded as “the black seat.” (If Clarence Thomas died next June, either Gore or George W. will feel obliged to name a black judge to succeed him). There aren’t many black Republicans, let alone conservative black Republican lawyers/judges to choose from. In order to appoint one, President Bush had to lower his standards a bit.
But only a bit. Thomas has proven a capable justice. Not one who’ll leave a magnificent legacy, but an articulate voice for his beliefs. He has not embarrassed himself on the Court, and I don’t expect him to do so in the future.
Now, Gadarene, contrary to your assertion that the Bork hearings are irrelevant to this debate, I believe the Bork hearings are of the utmost importance in assessing Clarence Thomas’ feelings of persecution. And, like it or not, the Bork hearings had repercussions that persists to this day. Ask any of the judges whose confirmations are being held up by Orrin Hatch and the Republicans of the Judiciary Committee.
While Gadarene and others have every right to question Clarence Thomas’ credentials, it is both inaccurate and dishonest to pretend that his credentials were the reason that liberal groups fought his nomination tooth and nail.
After all, NOBODY questioned Robert Bork’s credentials or his experience, but he was shot down anyway, in an unprecedented matter. NEVER before had a Supreme Court nominee had to undergo the kind of media scrutiny that Robert Bork went through, and NEVER had any nominee endured such a well-organized smear campaign.
Interestingly, though the Democrats COULD have made a plausible case that Judge Thomas was unqualified, they never really tried to. How could they? The Senate Democrats were caught in a trap of their own making. In the PC climate that they themselves had created, how could they possibly risk being seen on TV denigrating the intelligence and qualifications of a black man? Attacking Thomas’ intellect and credentials, though possibly justified, was a potential powder keg that the Democrats couldn’t risk setting off. Since the Democrats were afraid to attack his credentials, they chose to make an issue of his personal life, just as they had TRIED to do with Robert Bork.
Incidentally, I was NOT making up the story about liberal groups digging up the records of Robert Bork’s video rentals. Apparently, some groups are so devoted to “the right to privacy” that they could justify ANY measures that might embarrass Judge Bork (as it turned out, they found nothing more pornographic than “Ruthless People”).
Having seen what liberal action groups were prepared to do to discredit Robert Bork, is ANYONE surprised that Clarence Thomas expected the worst? Liberal groups had PROVEN, during the Bork hearings, that there were NO lengths to which they would not go to derail conservative judges. So, when Clarence Thomas was nominated, and he heard leading liberals vowing to “Bork” him, it was only natural that he’d feel paranoid.
The Bork hearings ALSO explain something else. Unlike many conservatives, I take Anita Hill and her charges seriously. But the Bork hearings were so unprecedented, so unfair, that Senate Republicans adopted a “circle the wagons” mentality. They were so embittered (rightly) by the Democrats’ disgusting behavior during the Bork hearings, they ASSUMED (perhaps wrongly) that Anita Hill was just part of another set of dirty tricks.
In my opinion, the Senate Republicans acted EXACTLY like Bill Clinton’s defenders. In the face of credible evidence that their man was a lecher, they chose to believe instead that their man was the victim of a conspiracy. Odd, isn’t it, that people who pretended to be outraged by Bill Clinton’s treatment of Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick had no sympathy for Anita Hill (and vice versa).
Of course, I happen to think the ultimate outcome in both cases was correct: Clinton and Thomas DID deserve scorn and humiliation (which they got), but neither deserved to lose his post.
astorian: Fair enough, and thank you for the civil post. A couple of points and questions, however (none of these are meant with any semblance of sarcasm):
[ul]
[li]If Clarence Thomas didn’t have “the kind of distinguished record or years of experience” shared by most nominees–which is, by the way, a bit of an understatement–then what made him a qualified nominee? It’s not as if he made his mark as something other than a judge–as did, for example, William Rehnquist or William Taft. Like I said initially, I’d submit that–based on his credentials and demonstrated judicial acumen on the circuit court bench–Clarence Thomas is the least qualified judicial candidate since at least the twin pillars of mediocrity, Carswell and Haynsworth. His career path and subsequent ascension to the bench, by the way, were based not on the fact that he was a black man, but that he was an extremely conservative black man. There were other, better qualified, minorities to whom the Bush administration could have turned, but they were all more moderate. (Rereading your post, I see you make this last point as well–except that there were competent black Republicans available, albeit none that had been groomed for the post like Thomas.)[/li][li]I guess you didn’t catch it the first time: my invocation of Clarence Thomas’s personal problems, including what seems to be a pronounced persecution complex, has very little to do with the confirmation hearings. It’s got a heck of a lot to do with the way Thomas has conducted himself, both personally and professionally, in his life before becoming a Supreme Court nominee. Read Strange Justice, especially the parts which cite Thomas’s mentor John Danforth. I’m sorry I’m not being more specific, I no longer have the book; if you like, however, I can check it out from the library and go over the substance of my statements chapter and verse. But I’m not just talking about Thomas’s feelings about his confirmation (i.e., “electronic lynching,” or whatever it was he said)–it goes back much, much further than that.[/li][li]You made this statement: “It is both inaccurate and dishonest to pretend that [Thomas’s] credentials were the reason liberal groups fought his nomination tooth and nail.” Well, they weren’t the sole reason, anyway, and I agree that it would be “inaccurate and dishonest” to argue that they were–it’s a good thing, then, that I never said that, isn’t it? Show me, in fact, where I said anything about Thomas’s confirmation process, other than that, in my view, the Democrats shouldn’t have let the nomination slip by without a fight.[/li][li]As it happens, I mostly agree with you about the comparisons between Clinton’s trial and Thomas’s confirmation–though I believe that there were a hell of a lot of important differences. In general, however, your interpretation of the confirmations of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork is incredibly simplistic. (For Bork, try Matters of Principle by Mark Gitenstein, or Pursuit of Justices by David A. Yalof) You demonstrated to me on the Liberal Justices thread–especially with your puerile disappearing act–that your knowledge of Supreme Court history, past and present, was somewhat lacking. Specifically, your views are largely devoid of historical context–or at least, any context which contradicts your conclusions or renders judgment in less than black and white terms. It’s hard to debate with you, astorian, despite your moments of civility, because when your assertions are countered are unloaded, you very seldom revise your view to incorporate the information you’ve been given. You’re a hell of a smart guy; please, bone up on the scholarship of these things so that we can have a common base from which to argue with each other.[/li][/ul]
Gadarene has mentioned the book Strange Justice I think three times now. In the interest of providing an opposing view, I have read a chapter by chapter analysis/review of the data and opinions put forth by Mayer and Abramson, which suggests that the book contains quite a few factual inaccuracies and conclusions not best supported by the data.
The review I am referring to was written by David Brock, author of The Real Anita Hill, so of course there may be a hint of a jounalistic turf battle. But he has done his research. Before the claims of ‘right-wing bias’ can be applied to Brock, don’t forget that he has fallen way out of favor with the right, in light of his support of the Clintons during the whole Monica fiasco, and his sympathetic biograpy of Hillary.
So, while Strange Justice might have a lot to say, it may not be the final or most accurate word on the Hill/Thomas situation. I’ll hang around just in case anyone does want to go through the book point by point.
That’s cool, divemaster; Mayer and Abramson may in no way be the definitive source on the life and times of Clarence Thomas…I just think they’re a handy place to start. As far as Brock’s criticisms, I do think they have an element of the turf war you mentioned–from what I remember about Strange Justice, they took a bunch of pot shots at The Real Anita Hill, and I think that the respective authors are from different places ideologically. Both accounts should be taken with a grain of partisan salt. That said, though, I believe I’ve read more stories in the ‘objective’ media casting doubt on the credibility of David Brock than on Mayer and Abramson–confessing, all the while, that our conceptions of the ‘objective’ media are themselves probably wildly divergent. grin
Could you post, or e-mail to me, a link for Brock’s point-by-point critique? I’d be interested in evaluating the claims of both parties as compared to the scholarship of more neutral historians. As with most things, I’m sure the truth lies somewhere between Strange Justice and David Brock–though it’s difficult to see how much of the material about Clarence Thomas’s past problems (specifically as referred to by John Danforth) could be interpreted differently. As you note, Strange Justice does have a lot to say…it raises many interesting points, and seems to back them up with solid references. So while I wouldn’t be averse to someone proving Mayer and Abramson wrong with regard to Thomas’s history, it would probably have to be someone other than David Brock.
(No offense to him or you, divemaster, and I appreciate your raising a competing view.)
I’m positive I have a hard copy of Brock’s piece. (Let’s see…Yep, here it is in my special right-wing conspiracy file. ) I’ll e-mail you so that I can get a address which to send a copy. I very much look forward to your response, whether it be via the boards or e-mail.
I have no opinion on the Clarence Thomas matter, but I offer the following link in response to this discussion
Isn’t the net an amazing thing? Here I was all set to mail a paper copy, and beagledave comes through with the correct link!
Actually, I prefer reading items such as this in hard copy, because for me it is easier on the eyes and my attention does not tend to wander so much. But it sure is more convenient.
The website for the Brock piece indicates an incorrect publication date. The article first appeared in the January 1995 issue.