Full Version: Justice Clarence Thomas On 60 Minutes
Last night on 60 Minutes (YouTube link if you missed it: One, Two, Three) Justice Clarence Thomas was interviewed as part of a media run leading to the release of his new book My Grandfather's Son. In the interview there are some interesting things said:
Questions For Debate:
How are Justice Thomas's experiences with Affirmative Action more or less valid than other's experiences?
What do you think of Justice Thomas's assertion that Affirmative Action sends people into places they cannot excel?
What do you think about Justice Thomas's idea that there are political positions it are "heretical for a black man"?
Is there any reason that Justice Thomas's view should be disregarded?
QUOTE
"He says his critics — the people who question whether he is smart or qualified to be on the Court or who suggest he merely does what a white Supreme Court colleague dictates — are as also as bigoted as the whites of his childhood in the deep South.
"People feel free to say about me what they think about lots of blacks," Thomas said in an interview in his chambers at the Supreme Court. "Because of the heterodox views I've taken, they have license to say it about me with impunity."
"People feel free to say about me what they think about lots of blacks," Thomas said in an interview in his chambers at the Supreme Court. "Because of the heterodox views I've taken, they have license to say it about me with impunity."
QUOTE
Thomas's life and experiences — growing up in the Jim Crow South, integrating all-white public schools as the only black student, confronting more latent racism after he fled to what he hoped would be "utopia" in the North — clearly have influenced how he views the law and social policies like affirmative action. His brutal 1991 confirmation battle only reinforced those deeply held views. He says he believes every discussion of race in America is fundamentally dishonest.
"It's even more dishonest than the '60s," he says.
He is adamantly opposed to affirmative action, but for entirely different reasons than white conservatives who drive the debate by arguing it's unfair to white people. Thomas says affirmative action instead has hurt blacks. It not only sends them into environments in which they are doomed to struggle instead of soar, but it also perpetuates negative stereotypes that whites hold today that all blacks are inferior to them and don't belong — just as whites in the South assumed 50 years ago.
"It's even more dishonest than the '60s," he says.
He is adamantly opposed to affirmative action, but for entirely different reasons than white conservatives who drive the debate by arguing it's unfair to white people. Thomas says affirmative action instead has hurt blacks. It not only sends them into environments in which they are doomed to struggle instead of soar, but it also perpetuates negative stereotypes that whites hold today that all blacks are inferior to them and don't belong — just as whites in the South assumed 50 years ago.
QUOTE
Under affirmative action, Thomas says, whites will forever believe blacks enroll in top schools or hold good jobs only because the institutions lowered their standards to accept them — regardless of whatever qualifications an individual may actually have. The assumption is that blacks, Thomas says, are not and cannot be as good as whites.
"Once you start making these decisions and judgments about people's capabilities based on race, it is forever locked in," Thomas says. "And you can see it play out throughout my confirmation and throughout the subsequent years that I've been on the Court."
"Once you start making these decisions and judgments about people's capabilities based on race, it is forever locked in," Thomas says. "And you can see it play out throughout my confirmation and throughout the subsequent years that I've been on the Court."
QUOTE
He says he had to be "dehumanized" and "destroyed," because he held views considered heretical for a black man — because, as he puts it, he was in a different ideological neighborhood and refused to buy into the views that whites had "disseminated as the prevailing view for blacks."
"I saw it for what it was, and I still see it for exactly what it was," Thomas says. "I think it was an effort to keep me in my place."
"I saw it for what it was, and I still see it for exactly what it was," Thomas says. "I think it was an effort to keep me in my place."
QUOTE
Instead of being a hypocrite for opposing affirmative action after supposedly benefiting from it, a frequent charge, Thomas says affirmative action actually harmed him and that he believes he should be able to criticize it.
"Once we're set on something that's the accepted wisdom, other people like me, who have questions, suddenly become heretics — you can't talk about it, you can't say, 'Look, I have good intentions, too. I just don't agree with you,'" Thomas says. "Why wouldn't it be just as easy to say, 'Well, here's somebody who went through it, and he has some problems with it based on his experience, and his intentions are as good as the people who are the authors of the initial policy?' But that doesn't happen."
"Once we're set on something that's the accepted wisdom, other people like me, who have questions, suddenly become heretics — you can't talk about it, you can't say, 'Look, I have good intentions, too. I just don't agree with you,'" Thomas says. "Why wouldn't it be just as easy to say, 'Well, here's somebody who went through it, and he has some problems with it based on his experience, and his intentions are as good as the people who are the authors of the initial policy?' But that doesn't happen."
Questions For Debate:
How are Justice Thomas's experiences with Affirmative Action more or less valid than other's experiences?
What do you think of Justice Thomas's assertion that Affirmative Action sends people into places they cannot excel?
What do you think about Justice Thomas's idea that there are political positions it are "heretical for a black man"?
Is there any reason that Justice Thomas's view should be disregarded?
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 1 2007, 09:03 AM) 
Questions For Debate:
How are Justice Thomas's experiences with Affirmative Action more or less valid than other's experiences?
What do you think of Justice Thomas's assertion that Affirmative Action sends people into places they cannot excel?
What do you think about Justice Thomas's idea that there are political positions it are "heretical for a black man"?
Is there any reason that Justice Thomas's view should be disregarded?
How are Justice Thomas's experiences with Affirmative Action more or less valid than other's experiences?
What do you think of Justice Thomas's assertion that Affirmative Action sends people into places they cannot excel?
What do you think about Justice Thomas's idea that there are political positions it are "heretical for a black man"?
Is there any reason that Justice Thomas's view should be disregarded?
Clarence Thomas will never be accepted in to "national Black leadership" in that he doesn't buy what they're sellin'.
The fact is that I've said what Justice Thomas has said a hundred times. Affirmative Action doesn't and hasn't worked, but rather it has a detrimental affect on a population.
Affirmative Action has always been a reason for mediocre performance. If an intelligent student doesn't excel due to a program that he/she knows will allow acceptance into college, when they arrive in a college that doesn't skew their performance to the same scale they will have to either change their behavior or fail.
Furthermore, I believe that Justice Thomas is spot on about people viewing maybe... Black officers as inferior. Mrs P, go ahead and chime in... but I doubt you have the same experience with your husband being a pilot. There are no "affirmative action" policies for those with a $20M plane.
BUT, the Army and Marine Corps have massive AA policies. If a black officer gets promoted, you better bet that someone will assume that part of his success is due to his pigmentation. How fair is that? What if he's a good officer?
I think Justice Thomas's opinions are AS or MORE vaild than other Black Americans' opinions. WHY???... because he lived through real racism. He's seen our culture move from one end of the pendulum to the other. He made his own way in a society that probably didn't want him to. I can't say that I believe that it happens like that for most Black Americans in 2007.
Colin Powell said it worked for him. Is Coln Powell a lier that doesn't have his fact straight Aevens? 
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/powell.race/
Calling himself a "strong proponent" of affirmative action, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday that he believes race should play a role in university admissions.
"I wish it was possible for everything to be race-neutral in this country, but I'm afraid we're not yet at that point where things are race-neutral," Powell said on CNN's "Late Edition."
"I believe race should be a factor among many other factors in determining the makeup of a student body of a university."
Avens said:
Affirmative Action doesn't and hasn't worked, but rather it has a detrimental affect on a population.
Affirmative Action has always been a reason for mediocre performance. (I emboldened that one)
So are you saying that Colin Powell's success is merely "mediocre".
Hmmm, Let me ask you this Aevens- how do you feel about Affirmative Action for the rich and athletic? College admission standards are being lowered all the time for athletic admissions- thereby denying a far better student the ability to attend. GW benefited from his families power- he obviously bumped someoe far brighter than himself- a much more deserving person by if you are standing true to your quote:
Affirmative Action has always been a reason for mediocre performance. If an intelligent student doesn't excel due to a program that he/she knows will allow acceptance into college, when they arrive in a college that doesn't skew their performance to the same scale they will have to either change their behavior or fail.
So if a "legacy" or "athletic" student gets preferential treatment while having inferior test scores, and being an inferior student by any measure- what is so wrong with some other categories?
Or are you just okay with one and not the other?
Clarence Thomas Poll of African-Americans
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa36...i_n8732994/pg_4
The Thomas nomination created controversy nationally, and particularly divided the African-American community. The Atlanta Constitution, prior to the Anita Hill conflict, cited its poll (with WSB-TV Atlanta) that 49 percent of blacks favored the confirmation and 26 percent were opposed.
Guess what, some blacks agree with you, some don't. Not exactly monolithic, now is it?
from the same article:
Coverage of the Clarence Thomas issue in the African-American newspapers, between President Bush's nomination and the confirmation, was uncharacteristically schizophrenic. Following in the footsteps of Thurgood Marshall, a near demigod in the eyes of the African-American community, Thomas had a big "robe" to fill that was destined to be a difficult task for any mortal being, but he was obviously too much of a contrast to be embraced.
Well, as a justice, and considering what shoes Clarence Thomas had to fill to be a treasured icon of America- he has failed badly in that regard.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/powell.race/
Calling himself a "strong proponent" of affirmative action, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday that he believes race should play a role in university admissions.
"I wish it was possible for everything to be race-neutral in this country, but I'm afraid we're not yet at that point where things are race-neutral," Powell said on CNN's "Late Edition."
"I believe race should be a factor among many other factors in determining the makeup of a student body of a university."
Avens said:
Affirmative Action doesn't and hasn't worked, but rather it has a detrimental affect on a population.
Affirmative Action has always been a reason for mediocre performance. (I emboldened that one)
So are you saying that Colin Powell's success is merely "mediocre".
Hmmm, Let me ask you this Aevens- how do you feel about Affirmative Action for the rich and athletic? College admission standards are being lowered all the time for athletic admissions- thereby denying a far better student the ability to attend. GW benefited from his families power- he obviously bumped someoe far brighter than himself- a much more deserving person by if you are standing true to your quote:
Affirmative Action has always been a reason for mediocre performance. If an intelligent student doesn't excel due to a program that he/she knows will allow acceptance into college, when they arrive in a college that doesn't skew their performance to the same scale they will have to either change their behavior or fail.
So if a "legacy" or "athletic" student gets preferential treatment while having inferior test scores, and being an inferior student by any measure- what is so wrong with some other categories?
Or are you just okay with one and not the other?
Clarence Thomas Poll of African-Americans
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa36...i_n8732994/pg_4
The Thomas nomination created controversy nationally, and particularly divided the African-American community. The Atlanta Constitution, prior to the Anita Hill conflict, cited its poll (with WSB-TV Atlanta) that 49 percent of blacks favored the confirmation and 26 percent were opposed.
Guess what, some blacks agree with you, some don't. Not exactly monolithic, now is it?
from the same article:
Coverage of the Clarence Thomas issue in the African-American newspapers, between President Bush's nomination and the confirmation, was uncharacteristically schizophrenic. Following in the footsteps of Thurgood Marshall, a near demigod in the eyes of the African-American community, Thomas had a big "robe" to fill that was destined to be a difficult task for any mortal being, but he was obviously too much of a contrast to be embraced.
Well, as a justice, and considering what shoes Clarence Thomas had to fill to be a treasured icon of America- he has failed badly in that regard.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 1 2007, 01:42 PM)
So are you saying that Colin Powell's success is merely "mediocre".
Yet, like Justice Thomas, Condi Rice, Colin Powell is not particularly embraced by blacks. Uncle Tom is the most used pejorative for him. Here, here, here, here and also here... oh you get the idea.
So these two extremely successful black men have differing ideas on the outcome and necessity of Affirmative Action; but what do you think CR?
If you are asking me- I think Clarence Thomas is a really mediocre justice as best, no lion on the bench or anything. And I think affirimitive action has been a net positive for the country, I wish all education was free personally- I believe an educated society is a free society.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 1 2007, 10:03 AM)
What do you think of Justice Thomas's assertion that Affirmative Action sends people into places they cannot excel?
There are few Black Americans who have benefited more and advanced further by way of affirmative action than Clarence Thomas. His entire career is a testament to a man of mediocre credentials and limited vision rising to a position of power based on his ability to ingratiate, flatter and insinuate himself into the patronage of affluent and well-connected White patrons.
His brief and undistinguished tenure as a judge, his tepid "qualified" to "not qualified" ranking by the American Bar Association and his 52-48 confirmation by the Senate is a testimony to the monument to mediocrity that is Clarence Thomas. The day that George H.W. Bush stood with Thomas and announced he had selected "the most qualified man I could find" was a bald-faced lie when the words passed from Bush's lips and nothing has happened since then to validate his absurd claim.
Thomas is a affirmative action baby. Nowhere else would he have been elevated so far and so fast based on his minimal talents, skills and abilities. He is a product of political patronage and far from the best or the brightest to ascend to the nation's highest court.
Thomas may be right that affirmative action sends people into places they cannot excel. He is the living proof of that assertion and every day he stays on the Supreme Court makes it only more obvious.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 1 2007, 04:46 PM)
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 1 2007, 10:03 AM)
What do you think of Justice Thomas's assertion that Affirmative Action sends people into places they cannot excel?
There are few Black Americans who have benefited more and advanced further by way of affirmative action than Clarence Thomas. His entire career is a testament to a man of mediocre credentials and limited vision rising to a position of power based on his ability to ingratiate, flatter and insinuate himself into the patronage of affluent and well-connected White patrons.
His brief and undistinguished tenure as a judge, his tepid "qualified" to "not qualified" ranking by the American Bar Association and his 52-48 confirmation by the Senate is a testimony to the monument to mediocrity that is Clarence Thomas. The day that George H.W. Bush stood with Thomas and announced he had selected "the most qualified man I could find" was a bald-faced lie when the words passed from Bush's lips and nothing has happened since then to validate his absurd claim.
Thomas is a affirmative action baby. Nowhere else would he have been elevated so far and so fast based on his minimal talents, skills and abilities. He is a product of political patronage and far from the best or the brightest to ascend to the nation's highest court.
Thomas may be right that affirmative action sends people into places they cannot excel. He is the living proof of that assertion and every day he stays on the Supreme Court makes it only more obvious.
So you're saying Affirmative Action is a bad thing?
QUOTE
There are few Black Americans who have benefited more and advanced further by way of affirmative action than Clarence Thomas. His entire career is a testament to a man of mediocre credentials and limited vision rising to a position of power based on his ability to ingratiate, flatter and insinuate himself into the patronage of affluent and well-connected White patrons.
His brief and undistinguished tenure as a judge, his tepid "qualified" to "not qualified" ranking by the American Bar Association and his 52-48 confirmation by the Senate is a testimony to the monument to mediocrity that is Clarence Thomas
His brief and undistinguished tenure as a judge, his tepid "qualified" to "not qualified" ranking by the American Bar Association and his 52-48 confirmation by the Senate is a testimony to the monument to mediocrity that is Clarence Thomas
Gee I have a far higher opinion of the man. Is your opinion so low because you don’t like his politics?
If as you say “are few Black Americans who have benefited more and advanced further by way of affirmative action” – does this mean that you are against affirmative action because this is the result of same? Or is it just CT you dislike?
What do you think of Justice Thomas's assertion that Affirmative Action sends people into places they cannot excel?
Clearly CT is not a fan of affirmative action. And IMO he is more than a man who got ahead because of it. He grew up in some of the worst conditions and still managed to be more successful than most Americans.
“Clarence Thomas was born in Pin Point, Georgia, a small community outside Savannah. His father abandoned his family when he was only two years old,[1] leaving his mother Leola Anderson to take care of the family. At age seven they went to live with his mother's father, Myers Anderson, in Savannah. He had a fuel oil business that also sold ice; Thomas often helped him make deliveries.
His grandfather believed in hard work and self-reliance and would counsel him to "never let the sun catch you in bed in the morning." In “
In 1968 Clarence Thomas responded to a minority recruitment program and enrolled in the College of the Holy Cross, a Catholic school in Worcester, Massachusetts. There he helped found the Black Student Union and graduated in 1971 with an A.B., cum laude in English. He then attended Yale Law School from which he received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree in 1974.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
Certainly the Left and NPR tried to stop his confirmation – they failed.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 1 2007, 03:46 PM)
Thomas is a affirmative action baby. Nowhere else would he have been elevated so far and so fast based on his minimal talents, skills and abilities. He is a product of political patronage and far from the best or the brightest to ascend to the nation's highest court.
Thomas may be right that affirmative action sends people into places they cannot excel. He is the living proof of that assertion and every day he stays on the Supreme Court makes it only more obvious.
Thomas may be right that affirmative action sends people into places they cannot excel. He is the living proof of that assertion and every day he stays on the Supreme Court makes it only more obvious.
NT, you and I have argued AA for years it seems, but what you're saying here is that Clarence Thomas is right?
Is Affirmative Action detrimental to the nation? If it can happen, in your own words, at the highest level of the Justice System of the United States to the detriment of the greater good, couldn't it be happening with wanton abandonment in the rest of society?
I don't necessarily agree with your assessment about CT, but it's neither here nor there really. Who else suffers?
The question is, if Clarence Thomas is such a bane on society and a recipient of AA, why is this same analogy not true in the military, in the post office, in colleges, and in board rooms nationwide?
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Oct 1 2007, 04:59 PM)
So you're saying Affirmative Action is a bad thing?
QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 1 2007, 05:14 PM)
Gee I have a far higher opinion of the man. Is your opinion so low because you don’t like his politics?
If as you say “are few Black Americans who have benefited more and advanced further by way of affirmative action” – does this mean that you are against affirmative action because this is the result of same? Or is it just CT you dislike?
If as you say “are few Black Americans who have benefited more and advanced further by way of affirmative action” – does this mean that you are against affirmative action because this is the result of same? Or is it just CT you dislike?
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 1 2007, 05:32 PM)
NT, you and I have argued AA for years it seems, but what you're saying here is that Clarence Thomas is right?
Is Affirmative Action detrimental to the nation? If it can happen, in your own words, at the highest level of the Justice System of the United States to the detriment of the greater good, couldn't it be happening with wanton abandonment in the rest of society?
The question is, if Clarence Thomas is such a bane on society and a recipient of AA, why is this same analogy not true in the military, in the post office, in colleges, and in board rooms nationwide?
Is Affirmative Action detrimental to the nation? If it can happen, in your own words, at the highest level of the Justice System of the United States to the detriment of the greater good, couldn't it be happening with wanton abandonment in the rest of society?
The question is, if Clarence Thomas is such a bane on society and a recipient of AA, why is this same analogy not true in the military, in the post office, in colleges, and in board rooms nationwide?
I thought what I said was pretty clear. Apparently not. Allow me to clarify if I must.
No, I am not saying affirmative action is a bad thing, BA. I am saying Clarence Thomas has clearly benefited and prospered by way of affirmative action and IF it is true, as the critics of affirmative action assert, that the policy elevates unqualified Blacks over more qualified Whites, then the presence of Thomas on the Supreme Court is the living proof of the validity of that criticism.
That hopefully will answer your question, Ted on what my stance is regarding affirmative action. As for Justice Thomas personally, I don't hold him in particular high regard and I don't like his politics. What I dislike most about Thomas though is his judicial temperament which is out of the mainstream and far further to the extreme right than any other member of the court.
Jeffrey Toobin has written a book about The Supreme Court entitled The Nine and on the NPR (dirty lefties!) program, "Fresh Air" he talked about Thomas with host Terry Gross:
Mr. TOOBIN: Clarence Thomas is not just the most conservative member of the Rehnquist court or the Roberts court. He's the most conservative justice to serve on the court since the 1930s. If you take what Thomas says seriously, if you read his opinions, particularly about issues like the scope of the federal government, he basically thinks that the entire work of the New Deal is unconstitutional. He really believes in a conception of the federal government that hasn't been supported by the justices since Franklin Roosevelt made his appointments to the court. You know, I went to a speech that Justice Scalia gave at a synagogue here in New York a couple of years ago, and someone asked him, `What's the difference between your judicial philosophy and Justice Thomas?' I thought a very good question. And Scalia talked for a while and he said, `Look, I'm a conservative. I'm a texturalist. I'm an originalist. But I'm not a nut.' And I thought that...
GROSS: Meaning that he thinks Thomas is one.
Mr. TOOBIN: Well, that was certainly the implication.
GROSS: Mm-hmm.
Mr. TOOBIN: It was pretty amazing. I mean, Thomas is well outside the mainstream, even of the conservatives on the court.
Follow Thomas' career on the High Court and you don't have to be a legal scholar to figure out he's following a philosophy that is radical, extremist and far beyond even what a bona fide conservative like Antonin Scalia feels comfortable with.
Finally, Aevans176, any policy, no matter how well-intentioned, has a failure rate and I count Clarence Thomas as one of the more egregious failures of affirmative action. No one can tell me Thomas was "the most qualified" jurist Bush41 could find to replace Thurgood Marshall. Thomas wasn't even the most qualified Black judge for the job.
However, merely because a few unqualified minorities or women rise to a position of prominence by virtue of programs set up to remedy past and present discrimination that does not mean the entire program should be junked. Nor do I agree with you that there are hordes of similarly unqualified minorities and women lowering the standards and quality of the military, the post office, colleges, and board rooms.
What you fail to take into account is there have always been unqualified, unprofessional and incompetent White men flying planes upside down and making fatally poor military decisions, shooting up post offices, dumbing down bright minds in college classrooms and running corporations into bankruptcy. How do these idiots get into positions well beyond their abilities? Well, there's affirmative action for White guys too. It's just called the "good ol' boy network" or something equally less formal.
Clarence Thomas never set out to be a heroic inspiration in the mode of a Thurgood Marshall. Those were shoes he never wanted to try to fill. But over the course of time and history, Thomas has become the hero he never intended to be. He is the hero of White conservatives. They like how he speaks and love how he judges. They see him as a inspiration and a man to be admired.
Well, he is. Just not by the audience he was originally targeted for.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 1 2007, 05:42 PM)
Colin Powell said it worked for him. Is Coln Powell a lier that doesn't have his fact straight Aevens?
I shortened your post for brevity and server space is all.
I don’t agree with the athlete statement. I am not a college athlete, but currently people good in various athletics find routes to careers that way just like someone good at say programming a computer. It does not always pan out and many other majors at college or university don’t always get a job doing such either. Plus not everyone who plays college sports got in on a scholarship to do such.
As for AA, well I don’t know. The problem is vastly more complex then I doubt anyone cares to know about. Such as even natural selection or evolutionary studies are conducted by anthropologists on the situation in regards to infants in certain environments, to an array of other studies that don’t get any spotlight because they are not enflamed with basically relative emotional spin jargon.
I also don’t see life or American culture as anything striving for justice or for the matter anything fair or balanced. I personally had nothing to do with any racist actions in my lifetime, I don’t see why I should have to fit the bill for such. ON that note though I can see that racist trends in a society can surely have an influence on the future of that society, I think such a statement holds true for just about anything. Just look at the impact Nazi Germany held on the current world. Then again most people probably I would say reject AA because it reduces there chances, or has really nothing to do with race for the most part, which is kind of sad but we do have a rather large amount of stupid things alive and well in the world.
I also find that there is no easy solution to trying to obtain freedom and equality. I don’t think you can have one without the other, which I think is easily evident in the fact they seem coupled when actions are done to one or the other. So basically have you a massive injustice really going from modern humanity and morality, but no one really knows how to solve the problem of now and into the future in regards to such. I don’t support AA on the basis of allowing people into positions they actually should not hold, but on that note going from the idea that racism still does exist and racism of the past had a very negative impact, how do you resolve such really, or try to heal it.
How are Justice Thomas's experiences with Affirmative Action more or less valid than other's experiences?
How are any one person’s experiences any more valid than the next person? They are his experiences, and his alone. Therefore they are as valid as any other. A better question might be did Thomas rise to his present position based on AA policies that helped him get a leg up? Or did he rise in some part due to certain needs to place a black face in some positions?
What do you think of Justice Thomas's assertion that Affirmative Action sends people into places they cannot excel?
I believe that he has a point. Although AA was designed in theory, to ‘level the playing field’, it has and will continue to carry a stigma, and some people will always view someone that they believe has benefited from AA with suspicion. I would like to see any person make the honest attempt to pursue any endeavors they wish; I would also hope that if a person is determined to be inadequate for a certain field, that when they are let go, charges of discrimination would not be reflexive.
What do you think about Justice Thomas's idea that there are political positions it are "heretical for a black man"?
Listening to pundits and some of our own members, there is a school of thought that a black man having views contrary to those expressed by the liberal establishment is akin to chickens voting for Col. Sanders. The right has a lock on groupthink and herd mentality when it comes to religion and morals; the left has the same when it comes to racism and civil rights. The Uncle Tom-esque name calling merely shows the weakness of ability to appreciate differing opinions and ideas…….you know, diversity.
How are any one person’s experiences any more valid than the next person? They are his experiences, and his alone. Therefore they are as valid as any other. A better question might be did Thomas rise to his present position based on AA policies that helped him get a leg up? Or did he rise in some part due to certain needs to place a black face in some positions?
What do you think of Justice Thomas's assertion that Affirmative Action sends people into places they cannot excel?
I believe that he has a point. Although AA was designed in theory, to ‘level the playing field’, it has and will continue to carry a stigma, and some people will always view someone that they believe has benefited from AA with suspicion. I would like to see any person make the honest attempt to pursue any endeavors they wish; I would also hope that if a person is determined to be inadequate for a certain field, that when they are let go, charges of discrimination would not be reflexive.
What do you think about Justice Thomas's idea that there are political positions it are "heretical for a black man"?
Listening to pundits and some of our own members, there is a school of thought that a black man having views contrary to those expressed by the liberal establishment is akin to chickens voting for Col. Sanders. The right has a lock on groupthink and herd mentality when it comes to religion and morals; the left has the same when it comes to racism and civil rights. The Uncle Tom-esque name calling merely shows the weakness of ability to appreciate differing opinions and ideas…….you know, diversity.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 1 2007, 05:38 PM)
No, I am not saying affirmative action is a bad thing, BA. I am saying Clarence Thomas has clearly benefited and prospered by way of affirmative action and IF it is true, as the critics of affirmative action assert, that the policy elevates unqualified Blacks over more qualified Whites, then the presence of Thomas on the Supreme Court is the living proof of the validity of that criticism....
Finally, Aevans176, any policy, no matter how well-intentioned, has a failure rate and I count Clarence Thomas as one of the more egregious failures of affirmative action. No one can tell me Thomas was "the most qualified" jurist Bush41 could find to replace Thurgood Marshall. Thomas wasn't even the most qualified Black judge for the job.
Finally, Aevans176, any policy, no matter how well-intentioned, has a failure rate and I count Clarence Thomas as one of the more egregious failures of affirmative action. No one can tell me Thomas was "the most qualified" jurist Bush41 could find to replace Thurgood Marshall. Thomas wasn't even the most qualified Black judge for the job.
I feel like you're arguing both sides of this topic. On one hand you're saying that unqualified blacks are being hired over more qualified whites, but you're also saying that it's a success.
I don't see how that can be plausible, barring what you're saying is that less qualified people should be hired?
I don't necessarily agree about the Clarence Thomas argument, as you've nearly openly called numerous people who have opposing stands "Uncle Tom's" or "Sell-outs". It seems that if someone is Black, and doesn't carry the torch of "White man holding me down"... they're sell outs.
Clarence Thomas is a very educated man who happens to be in one of the highest offices of the nation. He obviously did something right, and isn't nearly as mediocre as you'd like to state. Justice Thomas came from a broken home where he was a self made man. He had a number of very high powered position prior to his appointment to the USSC. I suppose all that came due to Affirmative Action? Maybe in your eyes....but I doubt it.
I personally think this dude busted his rump. I personally believe that you can't have your cake and eat it too NT. It's really not a practical argument to say that AA is detrimental in this fashion and then say that AA has it's place in American society.
Affirmative Action, now in it's 4th decade, hasn't changed the lot in life for Black America. Justice Thomas knows this. Bill Cosby knows this. Anyone that sees things objectively knows this. It's a hand-out based system that doesn't force anyone to change their behavior, but rather assumes that America still holds onto Civil War era philosphy, which it doesn't.
NT, you even once said that "the sins of my fathers" should be revisited upon me (or other white people), and that AA and other "reparations type" policies are ok. What about people who didn't have slaves? What about poor southern families who weren't "oppressors"? Should we have some sort of "share croppers-children" scholarships? Should I get a $150K gov't job due to my heritage?
Clarence Thomas doesn't see the world the same way you do. Neither does Larry Elder. So? Does that make them wrong? I believe, in my earnest opinion, that your cynicism keeps you from ever even attempting to see their views. Justice Thomas makes some good points on Affirmative Action, none of which you've even attempted to refute.
QUOTE
No, I am not saying affirmative action is a bad thing, BA. I am saying Clarence Thomas has clearly benefited and prospered by way of affirmative action and IF it is true, as the critics of affirmative action assert, that the policy elevates unqualified Blacks over more qualified Whites, then the presence of Thomas on the Supreme Court is the living proof of the validity of that criticism
You say this as if anyone believed it was a black and white issue (no pun intended). Thomas got some breaks from affirmative action but mainly he got to where he is because he is damn smart and worked hard.
QUOTE
That hopefully will answer your question, Ted on what my stance is regarding affirmative action. As for Justice Thomas personally, I don't hold him in particular high regard and I don't like his politics. What I dislike most about Thomas though is his judicial temperament which is out of the mainstream and far further to the extreme right than any other member of the court.
Yes you and the rest of the left hate his “politics” and this is why they desperately tried to kill his nomination to the Court. This is why Teddy boy Kennedy had 24 people on his staff scouring his life to dig up dirt and all they could come up with is one liar in A. Hill.
This is why Juan Williams on NPR was attacked recently as well for supporting Thomas. It was disgusting and Juan is no conservative. But the far left like MoveOn who claim to own the Democrat Party are running the show.
I am certain that if he was a liberal you would love the man.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 2 2007, 10:36 AM)
I feel like you're arguing both sides of this topic. On one hand you're saying that unqualified blacks are being hired over more qualified whites, but you're also saying that it's a success.
I don't see how that can be plausible, barring what you're saying is that less qualified people should be hired?
I don't see how that can be plausible, barring what you're saying is that less qualified people should be hired?
I am not going to get into another protracted discussion about affirmative action. Nowhere did I ever say unqualified Blacks are being hired over more qualified Whites. That is your interpretation, not my words.
Affirmative action is a success and the emergence of a educated, employed and upwardly mobile Black middle class is evidence of it. There is no reason to junk the program because a few Clarence Thomases slip through the cracks and arise to positions of prominence they are not qualified for. Thomas is the exception, not exceptional.
QUOTE(Aevans176)
I don't necessarily agree about the Clarence Thomas argument, as you've nearly openly called numerous people who have opposing stands "Uncle Tom's" or "Sell-outs". It seems that if someone is Black, and doesn't carry the torch of "White man holding me down"... they're sell outs.
Yes, but I haven't called Clarence Thomas a "Uncle Tom" or a "sell-out" in this thread. Not yet anyway...
QUOTE(Aevans176)
Clarence Thomas is a very educated man who happens to be in one of the highest offices of the nation. He obviously did something right, and isn't nearly as mediocre as you'd like to state. Justice Thomas came from a broken home where he was a self made man. He had a number of very high powered position prior to his appointment to the USSC. I suppose all that came due to Affirmative Action? Maybe in your eyes....but I doubt it.
Uh-huh. Yeah, well that may be, but you might wonder just what's going on when a career bureaucrat gets appointed to the federal judiciary in 1990 and then in 1991 gets promoted to a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. If that's not a affirmative action hire, nothing is.
QUOTE(Aevans176)
I personally think this dude busted his rump. I personally believe that you can't have your cake and eat it too NT. It's really not a practical argument to say that AA is detrimental in this fashion and then say that AA has it's place in American society.
Then it is a good thing I never said that isn't it? What I said was Clarence Thomas benefited from affirmative action and rose to his position through White patronage and being the appropriate Black face in the right place. That's not a knock on him for taking advantage of his opportunities. That's just honestly evaluating how Clarence got over.
QUOTE(Aevans176)
Affirmative Action, now in it's 4th decade, hasn't changed the lot in life for Black America. Justice Thomas knows this. Bill Cosby knows this. Anyone that sees things objectively knows this. It's a hand-out based system that doesn't force anyone to change their behavior, but rather assumes that America still holds onto Civil War era philosphy, which it doesn't.
Objectively? I'm sure you are not including yourself as a objective observer. And please show me where Bill Cosby has ever indicated he is opposed to affirmative action programs. I'd love to read those remarks.
QUOTE(Aevans176)
NT, you even once said that "the sins of my fathers" should be revisited upon me (or other white people), and that AA and other "reparations type" policies are ok. What about people who didn't have slaves? What about poor southern families who weren't "oppressors"? Should we have some sort of "share croppers-children" scholarships? Should I get a $150K gov't job due to my heritage?
I believe you're engaging in selective memory recall here. I have never supported reparations. Affirmative action is not reparations and trying to characterize it as such is simply inaccurate. As far as the "sins of the father" goes my perspective is merely because no slaves and no slaveholders are still alive doesn't mean the consequences of over 400 years of legally sanctioned repression, rape, murder and the wholesale destruction of Black people as human beings are dead and buried with the victims and victimizers.
QUOTE(Aevans176)
Clarence Thomas doesn't see the world the same way you do. Neither does Larry Elder. So? Does that make them wrong? I believe, in my earnest opinion, that your cynicism keeps you from ever even attempting to see their views. Justice Thomas makes some good points on Affirmative Action, none of which you've even attempted to refute
I don't care if Thomas or Larry Elder see the world the same way I do. They're both free, Black and over 21, so they're allowed to think anyway they want to. I claim the same privilege. As I said before, Thomas is your hero. You can't make him mine.
And it's not cynicism that prevents me from attempting to see the views of Thomas and Elder. It's experience and it leads me to reject their viewpoints as counter-productive to the success of African-Americans.
QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 2 2007, 10:57 AM)
You say this as if anyone believed it was a black and white issue (no pun intended). Thomas got some breaks from affirmative action but mainly he got to where he is because he is damn smart and worked hard.
I'm not questing his brainpower or work ethic. I'm merely pointing out that Thomas played the AA card when it benefited him and now he says other Black people don't need it. Kinda selfish of him, in my humble opinion.
QUOTE
That hopefully will answer your question, Ted on what my stance is regarding affirmative action. As for Justice Thomas personally, I don't hold him in particular high regard and I don't like his politics. What I dislike most about Thomas though is his judicial temperament which is out of the mainstream and far further to the extreme right than any other member of the court.
QUOTE(Ted)
Yes you and the rest of the left hate his “politics” and this is why they desperately tried to kill his nomination to the Court. This is why Teddy boy Kennedy had 24 people on his staff scouring his life to dig up dirt and all they could come up with is one liar in A. Hill.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to assume you can read my previous remarks where I said, "I don't like his politics." How do you spin that into "hate his politics?" A lack of reading comprehension?
Oh, and I did write the good senior Senator from Massachusetts to oppose Thomas when he came before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I still have Kennedy's letter promising to do so.
You're going to have to prove Anita Hill lied, otherwise you're just engaging in typical right-wing character assassination.
QUOTE(Ted)
I am certain that if he was a liberal you would love the man.
But he's not so I don't. Which is also why you do love the man.
QUOTE
I'm not questing his brainpower or work ethic. I'm merely pointing out that Thomas played the AA card when it benefited him and now he says other Black people don't need it. Kinda selfish of him, in my humble opinion.
No he used the available resources and he would have made it with or without the damn AA. He is philosophically against AA and so are a lot of us. It had its time and now its time has passed.
Don’t you get it NT, AA was used by liberals to move some ahead who were unqualified – and not because they were stupid but because the schools they went to sucked (and still do) and those liberals couldn’t or wouldn’t fix it.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 2 2007, 11:13 AM)
And it's not cynicism that prevents me from attempting to see the views of Thomas and Elder. It's experience and it leads me to reject their viewpoints as counter-productive to the success of African-Americans.
BRILLIANT!
Ok- so what you're saying is that your ideas are what lead to success for Black people in the US?
Your views are shared by many Black leaders in the US, so why is the Black community so much more poverty stricken, incarcerated more, less likely to have two-parent homes, and has a shorter life-span? By my counts, the Black community in the US hasn't moved forward.
It seems that Black poverty is rampant and growing:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov24.html
Objectively, if the vast majority of Black people share your (pro-AA) views, wouldn't it be logical to state that Clarence Thomas has a better hold on at least what doesn't work? (ahem- CT isn't my hero... but obviously isn't a shlep movin' burgers in a drive-thru).
So- tell me, if obviously Black people in the US are working backwards, how does AA work? Is it beneficial as a punishment? Because it's obviously not changing the dynamic of Black poverty. CEO's are still predominantly white, etc.
I feel like anyone with Brown skin who doesn't agree with you is a sell-out and panders to White America. That's your standard response. Uncle Tom retort, that's what we'll call it. Unfortunately, you still haven't debated the claims that Justice Thomas has made.
Show me how Affirmative Action HAS made the nation better. Show me how and why, coorelating Affirmative Action programs, more graduates of colleges are turned out (as opposed to the statistical data that really shows more failures and drop outs as a %), how more CEO's are hired, how the poverty level is better, how less people end up in prison, etc.
I've NEVER said that this nation shouldn't work on getting Black America out of poverty, but I just don't think a hand-out based system is the answer. I think that anger and "the man is keepin' me down" mentality prevails in policy, Black America and America in general will never realize the true problem. Larry Elder knows this. Clarence Thomas knows this. The only people that seemingly don't know it are the ones who believe in plundering all that might be "white"... all that someone who has lighter skin than he might've "worked to get"... ALL because a Korean person might watch them in a store and that's proof of racism.
NT, it isn't. C Thomas and I both know... Affirmative Action is an affront to all Black Americans who have gotten somewhere by the sweat of their brows. It undermines much success that anyone of color has off a football field or basketball court.
Go work hard and get an executive level job in corporate America. I'm 100% confident that your peers will wonder if you were promoted due to the lack of color at the top... a 'diversity' policy of sorts. Sucks doesn't it.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 2 2007, 12:08 PM)
I've NEVER said that this nation shouldn't work on getting Black America out of poverty, but I just don't think a hand-out based system is the answer.
I absolutely agree that a hand-out system isn't the answer. What system are you referring to that does the "hand-out"? Affirmative Action? If so, please prove that it is in fact a hand-out system.
Yes, I would like to see the stats on all these unqualified individuals that made it into college and and bumped other unqualified individuals- like oh, a legacy like GW- obviously- thousands of black applicants I am sure are of a higher caliber student with a better work ethic should take the spot of poeple that are simply there because of who they are related too.
You guys keep mistating the usual myths about AA being "quota's " and such.
I thought you anti-Affirmative action types finally shut up after learning things we like to call "facts" about AA from Kmsouthern's awesome first post #206:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...amp;#entry38457
Please take time to educate yourself to actually know enough to comment on it- really.
A nice quite from her post"
Those barriers were removed, but simply removing a barrier does not mean that you can automatically climb to the top as if the barrier was never there. People always make comments like "slavery was 150 years ago, get over it" or "Black people were granted their Civil Rights decades ago, get over it". Wouldn't it be nice if it were that simple! One cannot possibly understand the lasting effects (at the individual, family, and community level) of past discrimination without living through it one's self. Because my husband's mother attended segregated (lesser) schools in her youth, she received a "less than average" education. She attended a HBCU (Historically Black College/University), Tuskegee Institute, but her education to that point was not equal to that of a white counterpart. As such, her family must reap the repercussions of her "disadvantage" - she got a job at a largely Black elementary school (low pay, less assistance, poor quality materials, etc.) and her sons had to go to equally "less than average" schools because of her financial situation. This is a seemingly endless cycle that few people examine and take into consideration. Poor parents don't generally have children who grow up to be wealthy or even middle class. So, you see, the effects of pre-Civil Rights Era discrimination/racism/prejudice are STILL evident today.
To paraphrase Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: in order to pull ones' self up by his/her bootstraps, one needs to first have boots.
Bottom line is- Thomas would not have even made it into law school if not for AA, and would have no forum from which to comment- because he never would have had the opportunity to be a judge. The right gets its "uncle Clarence" from an AA program- how nice. Turns out the only real quota hire here seems to be Clarence.
You guys keep mistating the usual myths about AA being "quota's " and such.
I thought you anti-Affirmative action types finally shut up after learning things we like to call "facts" about AA from Kmsouthern's awesome first post #206:
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...amp;#entry38457
Please take time to educate yourself to actually know enough to comment on it- really.
A nice quite from her post"
Those barriers were removed, but simply removing a barrier does not mean that you can automatically climb to the top as if the barrier was never there. People always make comments like "slavery was 150 years ago, get over it" or "Black people were granted their Civil Rights decades ago, get over it". Wouldn't it be nice if it were that simple! One cannot possibly understand the lasting effects (at the individual, family, and community level) of past discrimination without living through it one's self. Because my husband's mother attended segregated (lesser) schools in her youth, she received a "less than average" education. She attended a HBCU (Historically Black College/University), Tuskegee Institute, but her education to that point was not equal to that of a white counterpart. As such, her family must reap the repercussions of her "disadvantage" - she got a job at a largely Black elementary school (low pay, less assistance, poor quality materials, etc.) and her sons had to go to equally "less than average" schools because of her financial situation. This is a seemingly endless cycle that few people examine and take into consideration. Poor parents don't generally have children who grow up to be wealthy or even middle class. So, you see, the effects of pre-Civil Rights Era discrimination/racism/prejudice are STILL evident today.
To paraphrase Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: in order to pull ones' self up by his/her bootstraps, one needs to first have boots.
Bottom line is- Thomas would not have even made it into law school if not for AA, and would have no forum from which to comment- because he never would have had the opportunity to be a judge. The right gets its "uncle Clarence" from an AA program- how nice. Turns out the only real quota hire here seems to be Clarence.
QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 2 2007, 02:29 PM)
QUOTE
I'm not questing his brainpower or work ethic. I'm merely pointing out that Thomas played the AA card when it benefited him and now he says other Black people don't need it. Kinda selfish of him, in my humble opinion.
No he used the available resources and he would have made it with or without the damn AA. He is philosophically against AA and so are a lot of us. It had its time and now its time has passed.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how it is you KNOW Thomas would have "made it" with or without affirmative action. If he is as philosophically opposed to affirmative action, then why did he use it to get to his present station?
What you seem to forget (or more likely choose to ignore) is people with power and privilege don't willingly give up either and in fact, fight like hell to keep it. For those whom possess White skin and male privilege, they would prefer to pass those advantages along to their children instead of non-Whites and non-males.
Does diversity and inclusion mean some less than stellar people will rise higher than others. Probably so. Clarence Thomas
is the embodiment of a mediocre talent being elevated higher than his own skills and abilities would have ever taken him by themselves. Thomas had the right complexion and the right connections and the right politics at a particularly opportunistic time in history for such a terribly undistinguished man.
But get rid of affirmative action and you won't get more equality. All you will get is power and privilege holding on to both.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 2 2007, 03:08 PM)
So- tell me, if obviously Black people in the US are working backwards, how does AA work? Is it beneficial as a punishment? Because it's obviously not changing the dynamic of Black poverty. CEO's are still predominantly white, etc.
I feel like anyone with Brown skin who doesn't agree with you is a sell-out and panders to White America. That's your standard response. Uncle Tom retort, that's what we'll call it. Unfortunately, you still haven't debated the claims that Justice Thomas has made.
Show me how Affirmative Action HAS made the nation better. Show me how and why, coorelating Affirmative Action programs, more graduates of colleges are turned out (as opposed to the statistical data that really shows more failures and drop outs as a %), how more CEO's are hired, how the poverty level is better, how less people end up in prison, etc.
I feel like anyone with Brown skin who doesn't agree with you is a sell-out and panders to White America. That's your standard response. Uncle Tom retort, that's what we'll call it. Unfortunately, you still haven't debated the claims that Justice Thomas has made.
Show me how Affirmative Action HAS made the nation better. Show me how and why, coorelating Affirmative Action programs, more graduates of colleges are turned out (as opposed to the statistical data that really shows more failures and drop outs as a %), how more CEO's are hired, how the poverty level is better, how less people end up in prison, etc.
Did you miss the first sentence in my previous post, Aevans176 or is your reading comprehension off kilter the same as Ted?
"I am not going to get into another protracted discussion about affirmative action."
We've had that debate before and there is no point to another one. It's tired and it's boring and if you want to have that debate you'll be having it with someone else because you won't be having it with me.
For a change, why don't you give a try at explaining how exactly a career bureaucrat with exactly ONE YEAR of judicial experience parlays that into a lifetime appointment on The Supreme Court of the United States.
When you bother to answer my question, Aevans176, maybe I'll consider answering yours.
How did Thomas get int Yale Law School? He got in through a minority set-aside program.
To this day, Thomas is a bitter and angry Black man. Y'know, the kind you like to accuse me of being? Thomas is whining and moaning and groaning about how his law degree was "worthless." Gee, Clarence, there's always work at the post office.
QUOTE
Go work hard and get an executive level job in corporate America. I'm 100% confident that your peers will wonder if you were promoted due to the lack of color at the top... a 'diversity' policy of sorts. Sucks doesn't it.
Not really. I'm not interested in trying to work on people's perceptions. I am who I am, and if you don't take the time to learn about that, then your perception is going to be your problem. This isn't high school. What my peers think about me doesn't faze me in the least.
Which makes me a helluva lot more comfortable in my skin than Clarence Thomas.
QUOTE
C Thomas and I both know... Affirmative Action is an affront to all Black Americans who have gotten somewhere by the sweat of their brows. It undermines much success that anyone of color has off a football field or basketball court.
It undermines them how? If they never benefitted from an Affirmative Action problem, how can they be undermined? Only one answer comes to mind. Perception. The perception of Whites who would see a successful Black man and lay it to the feet of AA.
Put who's fault is it that the White man believes the only reason the minority got the job was because of AA??
You and C Thomas would lay it at the feet of AA, rather than saying the racist ideals of the white man has that makes up believe the success of a minority is based on some AA program and not on merit.
A black man make maj before you or LTCol, is it AA's fault that you think he got it because he was Black, or is it your own belief structure. Being a white man hey it may be human nature to say that the minority got ahead of you, because they were a minority, but C thomas doesn't have the excuse.
QUOTE
Show me how Affirmative Action HAS made the nation better. Show me how and why, coorelating Affirmative Action programs, more graduates of colleges are turned out (as opposed to the statistical data that really shows more failures and drop outs as a %), how more CEO's are hired, how the poverty level is better, how less people end up in prison, etc.
Why??? I've seen you time and time again discard information you don't ant to believe in. Face it Aevans, you're a person of faith. When you want to believe something is wrong or right you don't let facts get in your way. It's what make you such a good conservative and Marine!!
QUOTE
Go work hard and get an executive level job in corporate America. I'm 100% confident that your peers will wonder if you were promoted due to the lack of color at the top... a 'diversity' policy of sorts. Sucks doesn't it.
Yeah it sucks that people think you got a job because you were Black and not because of hard work and effort... but it sucks a lot worse not getting the job because you are Black.
Look recent studies in this brand new turn of the centuray showed that resumes that had "Black" sounding names were disproportionately rejected than resumes with White names. How does Justice Clarence Thomas explain this?? My guess is he explains it the same way as you and many other conservative white males.
And that is why he get the "uncle tom" label. Because just as Uncle Tom told slaves how good the master was to them. So does Clarence Thomas tell his fellow Blacks, and minorities in general, that "White America" isn't racist anymore to warrant AA, though he used it himself.
BA- I think the last question is the most relevent one-
Is there any reason that Justice Thomas's view should be disregarded?
Absolutely there is a reason- it is his hypocrisy, and his "quota hire" as pay off to conservatives that put him in the position he is today to mouth the talking points of right wing America- he is not his own man, he is bought and paid for, and he knows it. That is why his view is worthless. Had he made it there under his own steam = such as oh, Thurgood Marshall - he views would be very valid. But he is no Thurgood Marshall- he is Uncle Clarence, but there by a white republican so he could speak for right wing conservatives, though he was horribly under-qualified for the job.
And of course, one of his main duties is to mis-represent AA and outright lie about AA, similar to what Aevens is parroting-
pretty much the entire debate about AA centers around lies by right wing opponents- but lying is only a sin apparently- if you are liberal- quite okay if you are conservative
Is there any reason that Justice Thomas's view should be disregarded?
Absolutely there is a reason- it is his hypocrisy, and his "quota hire" as pay off to conservatives that put him in the position he is today to mouth the talking points of right wing America- he is not his own man, he is bought and paid for, and he knows it. That is why his view is worthless. Had he made it there under his own steam = such as oh, Thurgood Marshall
- he views would be very valid. But he is no Thurgood Marshall- he is Uncle Clarence, but there by a white republican so he could speak for right wing conservatives, though he was horribly under-qualified for the job. And of course, one of his main duties is to mis-represent AA and outright lie about AA, similar to what Aevens is parroting-
pretty much the entire debate about AA centers around lies by right wing opponents- but lying is only a sin apparently- if you are liberal- quite okay if you are conservative
QUOTE
Absolutely there is a reason- it is his hypocrisy, and his "quota hire" as pay off to conservatives that put him in the position he is today to mouth the talking points of right wing America- he is not his own man, he is bought and paid for, and he knows it. That is why his view is worthless.
Ya right CR. Every judge who has a “conservative” view is bought and paid for but the Liberal judges the Court has have over the decades where just dedicated people doing the job?
You have to be kidding.
Teddy Kennedy and the other left wing hit squads tried to keep him off the court with every dirty trick they know and failed – so get over it.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Oct 3 2007, 11:15 AM)
BA- I think the last question is the most relevent one-
Is there any reason that Justice Thomas's view should be disregarded?
Absolutely there is a reason- it is his hypocrisy, and his "quota hire" as pay off to conservatives that put him in the position he is today to mouth the talking points of right wing America- he is not his own man, he is bought and paid for, and he knows it. That is why his view is worthless. Had he made it there under his own steam = such as oh, Thurgood Marshall - he views would be very valid. But he is no Thurgood Marshall- he is Uncle Clarence, but there by a white republican so he could speak for right wing conservatives, though he was horribly under-qualified for the job.
And of course, one of his main duties is to mis-represent AA and outright lie about AA, similar to what Aevens is parroting-
pretty much the entire debate about AA centers around lies by right wing opponents- but lying is only a sin apparently- if you are liberal- quite okay if you are conservative
Is there any reason that Justice Thomas's view should be disregarded?
Absolutely there is a reason- it is his hypocrisy, and his "quota hire" as pay off to conservatives that put him in the position he is today to mouth the talking points of right wing America- he is not his own man, he is bought and paid for, and he knows it. That is why his view is worthless. Had he made it there under his own steam = such as oh, Thurgood Marshall
- he views would be very valid. But he is no Thurgood Marshall- he is Uncle Clarence, but there by a white republican so he could speak for right wing conservatives, though he was horribly under-qualified for the job. And of course, one of his main duties is to mis-represent AA and outright lie about AA, similar to what Aevens is parroting-
pretty much the entire debate about AA centers around lies by right wing opponents- but lying is only a sin apparently- if you are liberal- quite okay if you are conservative
Brilliant Post CR. Not one fact really, but that's par for your course sir.
The facts lend themselves to posts like yours, as liberals have no counter for the fact that AA doesn't work or for the notion that a black accomplished man doesn't believe in Affirmative Action.
I'm a parrot? Of course not. It's just an opposing view that you don't like because you have no retort.
It has to be one way or the other. Either Justice Thomas is a recipient who shouldn't be there, which some people have eluded to, or he's not a recipient who doesn't believe in it as it's patronizing.
Which is it? Does someone like Justice Thomas not have the credentials? (please debate objectively) or is he a deserved candidate?
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 3 2007, 04:21 AM)
For those whom possess White skin and male privilege, they would prefer to pass those advantages along to their children instead of non-Whites and non-males.
That's about as racist a statement as ever gets posted on this board. Yep, those whities can't help but be bigoted - it's in their genes, y'know. Ugh.
It's a universal aspect of human nature for people to want what's best for their own children and to work hard for that. That has absolutely nothing to do with race, unless you define "race" as being one's own family. Beyond that, anti-black racist policies help whites not a bit. Apart from their obvious injustice to blacks, they also hurt whites by depriving all of society of the contributions that qualified blacks can freely make to it.
QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 15 2007, 11:07 AM)
Teddy Kennedy and the other left wing hit squads tried to keep him off the court with every dirty trick they know and failed – so get over it.
Sure thing. Just as soon as Clarence Thomas "gets over it." Reading excerpts from his book, you don't have to psycho analyze him to figure out that here is one bitter man. I guess there are some guys who get their job through affirmative action who remain continually sullen because they know they are a fraud and lack the qualifications for the gig.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 15 2007, 11:20 AM)
Brilliant Post CR. Not one fact really, but that's par for your course sir.
The facts lend themselves to posts like yours, as liberals have no counter for the fact that AA doesn't work or for the notion that a black accomplished man doesn't believe in Affirmative Action.
I'm a parrot? Of course not. It's just an opposing view that you don't like because you have no retort.
It has to be one way or the other. Either Justice Thomas is a recipient who shouldn't be there, which some people have eluded to, or he's not a recipient who doesn't believe in it as it's patronizing.
Which is it? Does someone like Justice Thomas not have the credentials? (please debate objectively) or is he a deserved candidate?
The facts lend themselves to posts like yours, as liberals have no counter for the fact that AA doesn't work or for the notion that a black accomplished man doesn't believe in Affirmative Action.
I'm a parrot? Of course not. It's just an opposing view that you don't like because you have no retort.
It has to be one way or the other. Either Justice Thomas is a recipient who shouldn't be there, which some people have eluded to, or he's not a recipient who doesn't believe in it as it's patronizing.
Which is it? Does someone like Justice Thomas not have the credentials? (please debate objectively) or is he a deserved candidate?
Here we have someone derisively criticizing another poster for not presenting any facts who then turns around and asserts affirmative action doesn't work and doesn't present any facts to prove affirmative action doesn't work. Par for your course too, Aevans176.
Speaking of having an opposing view that you don't like because you have no retort I am still waiting patiently for YOUR retort to the question I posed 12 days ago:
QUOTE
Why don't you give a try at explaining how exactly a career bureaucrat with exactly ONE YEAR of judicial experience parlays that into a lifetime appointment on The Supreme Court of the United States?
Perhaps you have chosen not to answer because you have no retort? Hopefully, if you muster up a reply you will debate objectively.
But I wouldn't hold my breath expecting that miracle to occur.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Oct 15 2007, 12:49 PM)
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 3 2007, 04:21 AM)
For those whom possess White skin and male privilege, they would prefer to pass those advantages along to their children instead of non-Whites and non-males.
That's about as racist a statement as ever gets posted on this board. Yep, those whities can't help but be bigoted - it's in their genes, y'know. Ugh.
It's a universal aspect of human nature for people to want what's best for their own children and to work hard for that. That has absolutely nothing to do with race, unless you define "race" as being one's own family. Beyond that, anti-black racist policies help whites not a bit. Apart from their obvious injustice to blacks, they also hurt whites by depriving all of society of the contributions that qualified blacks can freely make to it.
EDIT
Certainly people want what's best for their own children, but when they enact laws and polices to ensure one group of children receive a superior education and another group of children an inferior education, that's called segregation and if you don't think that hurt Blacks a lot more than it hurt Whites, you know don't much about American history.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 15 2007, 04:04 PM)
Certainly people want what's best for their own children, but when they enact laws and polices to ensure one group of children receive a superior education and another group of children an inferior education, that's called segregation and if you don't think that hurt Blacks a lot more than it hurt Whites, you know don't much about American history.
You haven't told me anything I don't already know, or anything that's at odds with what I posted. Yes, segregation has existed. It's a product of faulty thinking, and it does hurt all races. I never so much as intimated that it hurts them all remotely equally. It doesn't change the fact that it's not in the self-interests of whites to impose it. It was imposed not out of self-interest, but out of irrational passions which have since been thoroughly discredited.
Your stereotyping of white people on the basis of past segregation policies is no more justifiable than stereotyping black people based on crime statistics and illegitimacy rates. There's no evidence to suggest that in a free market unhindered by threats of violence, and where racism is universally frowned upon, whites will somehow "naturally" act to keep blacks down. There would be no logical reason for them to do so.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 15 2007, 03:04 PM)
Here we have someone derisively criticizing another poster for not presenting any facts who then turns around and asserts affirmative action doesn't work and doesn't present any facts to prove affirmative action doesn't work. Par for your course too, Aevans176.
Speaking of having an opposing view that you don't like because you have no retort I am still waiting patiently for YOUR retort to the question I posed 12 days ago:
Speaking of having an opposing view that you don't like because you have no retort I am still waiting patiently for YOUR retort to the question I posed 12 days ago:
I apologize NT, I have a job and don't get to sit and post unendingly.
Anyway...
From Wikipedia:
QUOTE
From 1974 to 1977, Thomas was an Assistant Attorney General of Missouri under then State Attorney General John Danforth. When Danforth was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1976 to 1989, Thomas left to become an attorney with Monsanto in St. Louis, Missouri. He returned to work for Danforth from 1979 to 1981 as a Legislative Assistant. Both men shared a common bond in that both had studied to be ordained (although Thomas was Roman Catholic and Danforth was ordained Episcopalian). Danforth was to be instrumental in championing Thomas for the Supreme Court.
In 1981, he began his rise through the Reagan administration. From 1981 to 1982, he served as Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights in the US Department of Education ("ED"), and as Chairman of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") from 1982 to 1990.
In 1990, President George H.W. Bush appointed Thomas to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In 1981, he began his rise through the Reagan administration. From 1981 to 1982, he served as Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights in the US Department of Education ("ED"), and as Chairman of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") from 1982 to 1990.
In 1990, President George H.W. Bush appointed Thomas to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Seems that his experience is pretty relevant. Does someone have to be a judge for their whole lives to get relative experience? I personally would think not. It seems that he has a pretty strong resume.
Want Affirmative Action information, and how it doesn't work?
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/oped/hayward/97/affact.html
QUOTE
"Recent research shows that college admissions preferences do not offer even the practical benefits claimed by their supporters," writes Marie Gryphon, a lawyer and policy analyst with the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom.
Affirmative action does not significantly affect college access because most four-year schools are not selective, and will accept any student with a high school education.
Preferences for minority students come into play only at the 20 to 30 percent of colleges where admissions are competitive, according to Gryphon.
But preferences at these selective schools have not increased college access for minorities because most minorities leave high school without the minimum credentials necessary to attend any four-year school.
Political scientist Jay Green found that only 20 percent of African-American students and 16 percent of Hispanics leave high school with the minimum credentials.
"Minority underrepresentation in college is caused by public schools' failure to prepare minority students," writes Gryphon. "It is a failure that affirmative action does not remedy."
Preferences also do not increase the earning power of students who attend more selective schools as a result of affirmative action.
Recent research shows that when equally prepared students are compared, those attending less selective schools make as much money as those from more selective schools.
Affirmative action in fact results in harm to the minority community, Gryphon found, due to the "ratchet effect:" Preferences at a handful of top schools, including state flagship universities, can worsen racial disparities in academic preparation at other schools by luring away qualified minority students who might otherwise attend those schools.
"This effect results in painfully large gaps in academic preparation between minority students and others on campuses around the country," according to Gryphon.
Affirmative action also hurts campus race relationships. Thomas Sowell, author of "Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study," writes: "Even in the absence of overt hostility, black students at M.I.T. complained that other students there did not regard them as being desirable partners on group projects or as people to study with for tough exams."
Affirmative action does not significantly affect college access because most four-year schools are not selective, and will accept any student with a high school education.
Preferences for minority students come into play only at the 20 to 30 percent of colleges where admissions are competitive, according to Gryphon.
But preferences at these selective schools have not increased college access for minorities because most minorities leave high school without the minimum credentials necessary to attend any four-year school.
Political scientist Jay Green found that only 20 percent of African-American students and 16 percent of Hispanics leave high school with the minimum credentials.
"Minority underrepresentation in college is caused by public schools' failure to prepare minority students," writes Gryphon. "It is a failure that affirmative action does not remedy."
Preferences also do not increase the earning power of students who attend more selective schools as a result of affirmative action.
Recent research shows that when equally prepared students are compared, those attending less selective schools make as much money as those from more selective schools.
Affirmative action in fact results in harm to the minority community, Gryphon found, due to the "ratchet effect:" Preferences at a handful of top schools, including state flagship universities, can worsen racial disparities in academic preparation at other schools by luring away qualified minority students who might otherwise attend those schools.
"This effect results in painfully large gaps in academic preparation between minority students and others on campuses around the country," according to Gryphon.
Affirmative action also hurts campus race relationships. Thomas Sowell, author of "Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study," writes: "Even in the absence of overt hostility, black students at M.I.T. complained that other students there did not regard them as being desirable partners on group projects or as people to study with for tough exams."
This is interesting...
http://www.policyalmanac.org/culture/archi...empirical.shtml
QUOTE
The ratio of the average black workers' earnings to the average white workers' earnings increased significantly in the 1940s, increased slightly if at all in the 1950s, increased significantly between 1960 and the mid 1970s, and declined somewhat since the late 1970s. (13)
There has not been an improvement in the employment-population rate of black workers relative to whites since the 1960s. If anything, there has been a deterioration in the relative employment-population rate. (15)
There has not been an improvement in the employment-population rate of black workers relative to whites since the 1960s. If anything, there has been a deterioration in the relative employment-population rate. (15)
Facts lead to the notion that AA doesn't work. Clarence Thomas, a well educated and accomplished man knows this. People who want the hand out are really the only staunch opponents. Are you saying that you need the hand out... or can you make it on your own?
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Oct 17 2007, 03:56 PM)
From Wikipedia:
Seems that his experience is pretty relevant. Does someone have to be a judge for their whole lives to get relative experience? I personally would think not. It seems that he has a pretty strong resume.
QUOTE
From 1974 to 1977, Thomas was an Assistant Attorney General of Missouri under then State Attorney General John Danforth. When Danforth was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1976 to 1989, Thomas left to become an attorney with Monsanto in St. Louis, Missouri. He returned to work for Danforth from 1979 to 1981 as a Legislative Assistant. Both men shared a common bond in that both had studied to be ordained (although Thomas was Roman Catholic and Danforth was ordained Episcopalian). Danforth was to be instrumental in championing Thomas for the Supreme Court.
In 1981, he began his rise through the Reagan administration. From 1981 to 1982, he served as Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights in the US Department of Education ("ED"), and as Chairman of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") from 1982 to 1990.
In 1990, President George H.W. Bush appointed Thomas to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In 1981, he began his rise through the Reagan administration. From 1981 to 1982, he served as Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights in the US Department of Education ("ED"), and as Chairman of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") from 1982 to 1990.
In 1990, President George H.W. Bush appointed Thomas to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Seems that his experience is pretty relevant. Does someone have to be a judge for their whole lives to get relative experience? I personally would think not. It seems that he has a pretty strong resume.
Oh no, I never said you had to be a judge for your whole life to get relative experience. Earl Warren wasn't a judge at all when he was appointed to the Supreme Court.
My point is that Thomas had barely a year's experience as a judge before he Bush41 nominated him to replace Thurgood Marshall. Before his brief stint on the federal bench, among his various jobs were Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Civil Rights in the U.S. Dept of Education, Assistant Attorney General of Missouri and a Legislative Assistant.
The shared commonality is Thomas was always an "assistant" and these are bureaucratic jobs. Which goes a long way to demonstrating his less-than-impressive legal background and also clearly demonstrates that Thomas was hardly "the most qualified person" Bush41 could find.
There were certainly more qualified candidates for the Court than the lackluster Thomas. His major qualifications for the job were being born Black and his conversion to conservatism. Not only was he not the most qualified candidate Bush41 could put forth he wasn't even the most qualified Black candidate.
Someone like Amalya Kearse would have been a far more exemplary choice.
Since 1979, Amalya Lyle Kearse has served as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, New York City. During her term on the federal appeals bench, and as a lawyer before that, Judge Kearse has earned a reputation as a gifted legal scholar, first-rate legal writer, and shrewd analyst.
So after she graduated from Wellesley in 1959, attended Michigan and graduated cum laude and near the top of her class in 1962. While at Michigan, she was elected to the Order of the Coif, an honor society in law and was Editor of the Law Review. Her legal expertise and performance on the Law Review Editorial Board earned Kearse the Jason L. Honigman Prize.
Kearse at age 29After graduation, Kearse joined the Wall Street law firm of Hughes, Hubbard, and Reed in New York City. She was one of very few African Americans and even fewer African American women to work on Wall Street. To succeed in those times, she had to be better than excellent, and she was. Kearse specialized in business and antitrust litigation. In 1969, she became a partner, an unprecedented accomplishment for someone so young.
At the age of 41, Kearse was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals by President Jimmy Carter. She was only the second African American and first woman to serve in the Second Circuit; only Thurgood Marshall, who had become a member of the Supreme Court by 1979, had preceded her.
Kearse's outstanding reputation as a lawyer and judge has led several presidents of both parties to put her name on the short list of candidates for the Supreme Court. Her name has been considered by the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations. She also almost was nominated for Attorney General by President Clinton, who ended up nominating Janet Reno instead. link
Judge Kearse, unlike Thomas, has the experience and judicial temperament to excel as a Supreme Court justice. How unfortunate that she was passed over in Bush41's eagerness to make a affirmative action hire instead.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.