Clarence (Uncle) Thomas = Biggest coon of all time?

[Dr. Perry Cox]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/op...%2c%20Clarence

The Next Big Thing in Law? The Harsh Jurisprudence of Justice Thomas
By ADAM COHEN

In the last 100 Supreme Court arguments, Clarence Thomas has not uttered a word. Court watchers have suggested a variety of explanations. Among the least flattering: he is afraid that if he speaks he will reveal his ignorance about the case; he is so ideologically driven that he invariably comes with his mind made up; or he has contempt for the process.

In their provocative new book, “Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas,” two Washington Post journalists, Kevin Merida and Michael Fletcher, ponder Justice Thomas’s extraordinary silence, and many other puzzles. They offer a wealth of insight, but they have no answer to the central enigma he poses: why the justice who has faced the greatest hardships regularly rules for the powerful over the weak, and has a legal philosophy notable for its indifference to suffering.

It is a particularly timely question. For 15 years, Justice Thomas was a marginal figure, rarely assigned to write major opinions because his views were so far right that he would have had trouble attracting five votes. But Justice Thomas is a lot less marginal with the recent changes in the court — particularly the replacement of Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate conservative, with Samuel Alito, a more extreme one. He appears poised in the next few weeks to achieve his longstanding goal: dismantling the integrationist vision of his predecessor Thurgood Marshall.

Justice Thomas’s early years were not as hardscrabble as his image-makers suggested during his confirmation; he left tiny Pin Point, Ga., young, and was raised in a middle-class home. But he grew up in the Jim Crow South, with an absent father and an often-absent mother. He spent much of his childhood, the authors say, being “angry and hurt.”

In college and law school, he identified strongly with his fellow blacks, and was liberal, even radical, on racial issues. But as he accepted jobs from Republicans eager to hire a conservative black lawyer, he shifted rightward. As chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, his phlegmatic advocacy for victims of discrimination disappointed civil rights activists, while impressing conservatives looking for a replacement for Justice Marshall.

His confirmation hearings, at which Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment, put an even sharper edge on his ideology. He redirected his anger, much of which had been aimed at whites, at liberals and civil rights organizations. Justice Thomas is now beloved on the far right, with friends like Rush Limbaugh, whose wedding he performed.

Justice Thomas wasted no time unveiling his harsh jurisprudence. In his first year on the court, he dissented from a decision holding that the ban on cruel and unusual punishment may have been violated when guards kicked a prisoner and punched him in the stomach, eye, and mouth. The prisoner had a split lip, bruises and loosened teeth, but Justice Thomas insisted that the Constitution did not prohibit such “insignificant harm.” He dissented from a ruling in favor of a prisoner who was handcuffed to a hitching post in the hot sun for seven hours while a guard taunted him about his thirst.

Justice Thomas also dissented from rulings that the mentally retarded and juveniles could not be executed. He can be counted on to reflexively oppose discrimination claims of minorities and women, as he did last week, when he joined the majority in rejecting the claim of a woman who was underpaid for years because of her sex, on the dubious ground that she complained too late.

Justice Thomas claims he is simply faithful to the “original intent” of the founders. But when the founders’ intent is not involved — as in the pay discrimination case, which was based on a modern statute — he is just as quick to reach a harsh result.

When Justice Thomas joined the court, he not only filled Justice Marshall’s seat, he also labored in his shadow. As a lawyer in Brown v. Board of Education, Justice Marshall had persuaded the court to champion racial integration. When he arrived on the court in 1967, he pushed it in a humane direction not only on race, but also in areas like prisoners’ and women’s rights and fair elections. The court had largely stopped moving forward in these areas by the time Justice Thomas arrived but, mainly due to Justice O’Connor, it did not move backward that much, either.

That appears likely to change. The court heard arguments this term challenging Louisville’s and Seattle’s voluntary efforts to integrate their schools. The court has long upheld voluntary attempts to bring students of different backgrounds together, including, just a few years ago, the University of Michigan’s affirmative action program. But this time, it is expected to strike down Seattle’s and Louisville’s, which is likely to make public schools much more segregated. With its new members, the court is also likely to make prisons less civilized, and workplaces, elections and criminal trials less fair.

When Justice Marshall retired, Justice O’Connor noted that he “imparted not only his legal acumen but also his life experiences” and made the court respond not only to his arguments but to “moral truth.” America will be a much less just place if Justice Thomas’s life experiences and moral truth start to shape the court’s agenda — and the nation’s.

[Metrophile]

coon?
no.

sellout?
yes.

GOAT coons are in rap.

[NZA!]

Originally Posted by Metrophile

coon?
no.

sellout?
yes.

GOAT coons are in rap.

that's about as accurate as possible

[ReInCaRnAtioN]

how can u oppose racial preference and affirmative action WHEN U BENEFITED FROM IT

[XtremeDisciple2k3]

Originally Posted by ReInCaRnAtioN

how can u oppose racial preference and affirmative action WHEN U BENEFITED FROM IT

That's not even the worse. I think Thomas's worse is the fact that he's carrying water for far right white supremacists bent on destroying people that look like Thomas himself. In my book, that's his greatest sin.

[Spike Lee]

yes

[malachi12]

I mean com'on now, Do you think Thomas has the power what we want him to do. He had no choice.

[Ceep It Real...]

a bigger sellout than Condy?

Condy is taking the idea of "sellout" to an extent previously unknown...

[Sabbatai]

Originally Posted by malachi12

I mean com'on now, Do you think Thomas has the power what we want him to do. He had no choice.

The ..power?

So if he doesn't do what "we" want him to do... it's because someone else's fault?

How? Fear of losing his job? Fear of losing the support of the enemy? Fear of losing his "power"?

Those sound like GREAT reasons to sell out your people.

Not at all like the very things people who really want to help the struggle would be willing to give up in order to do so....

[malachi12]

The ..power?

So if he doesn't do what "we" want him to do... it's because someone else's fault?

How? Fear of losing his job? Fear of losing the support of the enemy? Fear of losing his "power"?

Those sound like GREAT reasons to sell out your people.

Not at all like the very things people who really want to help the struggle would be willing to give up in order to do so....

What I am trying to say, even if he wanted to do something, white america won't allow it. White people like placing black people in certain position, so they wont show their racism. Black people in high position who want to do something end up dead....That is why Al Sharpton anit doingnothing.

[gldnone913]

ward connerly

[Freekey Zeekey]

Originally Posted by rodimusprime

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/28/sc...ace/index.html
By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Adjust font size:
Decrease fontDecrease font
Enlarge fontEnlarge font
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A bitterly divided U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday issued what is likely to be a landmark opinion -- ruling that race cannot be a factor in the assignment of children to public schools.
The court struck down public school choice plans in Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky, concluding they relied on an unconstitutional use of racial criteria, in a sharply worded pair of cases reflecting the deep legal and social divide over the issue of race and education.
Similar plans already in place or being proposed across the country could be in danger as a result of a ruling, which would sharply limit the power of local governments to achieve diversity using race-based criteria.
A conservative majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts said other means besides race considerations should be used to achieve diversity in schools.
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," Roberts wrote.
But supporters of the school choice plans found some hope in Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion. While finding the two particular plans were unconstitutional, Kennedy said race could still be used in narrow circumstances to ensure integrated schools.
"A district may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a diverse student population," he said.
More than a half-century after the high court outlawed segregation in public schools, the justices were deeply divided over one controversial outgrowth of that decision: what role race should play, if any, in assigning students to competitive spots in elementary and secondary schools. (Watch how the ruling may indicate the court is at war with itself)
The cases from Kentucky and Washington state revisit past disputes over race and education, stemming from the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.
"Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again -- even for very different reasons," Roberts wrote.
Roberts was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Kennedy proved the key swing vote striking down the Louisville and Seattle plans.
Reading his concurring opinion from the bench, the 70-year-old justice said, "This nation has a moral and ethical obligation to fulfill its historic commitment to creating an integrated society that ensures equal opportunity for all its children.
"A compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to pursue."
But he added, "Crude measures of this sort [as illustrated in this case] threaten to reduce children to racial chits valued and traded according to one school's supply and another's demand."
Thomas took a harder stance against the choice plans: "Simply putting students together under the same roof does not necessarily mean that the students will learn together or even interact," he said. "Furthermore, it is unclear whether increased interracial contact improves racial attitudes and relations."
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the ruling is "going to rank with the great, important school desegregation opinions of the court's history, starting with Brown v. Board of Education in 1954." (Full story)
"What this court said was even though only a few slots were determined by race, that's too many. You just simply can't consider race in deciding which school kids go to," Toobin said.
"Justice Kennedy, who was the swing vote, said maybe possibly you could do it sometimes. But clearly the message of the court majority here is that race is out as a consideration in school assignments. And a lot of districts still use it and are considering using it, and they're going to have to change."
Those on both sides of the issue, as well as the Bush administration, had hoped the Supreme Court would clarify when and to what lengths state and local officials can go to promote diversity in K-12 education.
In a landmark case three years ago, the justices affirmed racial quotas were unconstitutional but offered a limited, but nonetheless powerful endorsement of affirmative action in higher education. The Supreme Court has now ruled that legal standard does not apply in a K-12 public school setting.
While supporters on both sides of the issue seemed to agree classroom diversity is an important goal, differences remain over how to maintain it without the real or perceived consequence that some families may be unfairly discriminated against or inconvenienced.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the majority "reverses course and reaches the wrong conclusion. In doing so, it distorts precedent, it misapplies the relevant constitutional principles, it announces legal rules that will obstruct efforts by state and local governments to deal effectively with the growing resegregation of public schools, it threatens to substitute for present calm a disruptive round of race-related litigation."
Stevens was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
The Seattle and Louisville plans are voluntary, introduced in the years after integration of schools in many areas was managed by the courts. They were not designed as remedial efforts to achieve diversity, but to maintain it, as a reflection of the larger communities' racial makeup.
During oral arguments in December, hundreds of demonstrators -- many of them African-American college students -- marched and chanted outside the court in support of the affirmative action plans. Some carried signs such as "Equal education, not segregation."
Louisville-area schools endured decades of federal court oversight after schools there were slow to integrate. When that oversight ended in the late 1990s, county officials sought to maintain integration, requiring that most public schools have at least 15 percent and no more than 50 percent African-American enrollment. The idea was to reflect the whole of Jefferson County, which is 60 percent white and 38 percent black. Officials say their plan reflects not only the need for diversity but also the desire of parents for greater school choice.
A white parent, Crystal Meredith, sued, saying her child was twice denied the school nearest their home and had to endure a three-hour bus ride to a facility that was not their top choice. Many African-American parents raised similar concerns.
"We are here not because we didn't get our first choice, but because we got no choice," said Meredith shortly after the ruling. "I was told by the school board that my son's education was not as important as their plan. I was told I should sacrifice his learning in order to maintain the status quo."
Louisville school officials said the ruling would not affect their school assignment plan for the coming school year.
"Although the court held that some aspects of the [county's] student assignment plan do not satisfy the court's 'narrow tailoring' requirement, it is clear Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion will allow local boards of education to use certain race-conscious measures to maintain integrity in schools," said Frank Mellon, the attorney representing the school system.
In Seattle, public schools often rely on a "tiebreaker." Under the plan, begun in 1998, families can send their children to any school in their district. When there are more applicants than spaces available, and when a school is not considered "racially balanced," race is one of several "integration tiebreakers" used to achieve diversity.
A group primarily of white parents from two neighborhoods sued in 2001, saying about 200 students were not admitted to the schools of their choice, preventing many from attending facilities nearest to their homes.
One school at the center of the controversy is Franklin High. Half of its roughly 1,500 students are Asian-American, a third are African-American, and about 7 percent are Hispanic. White enrollment dropped from 23 percent in 2000 to 10 percent last year.
The Seattle diversity plan was suspended while the appeals worked their way through the courts.
From the justices' comments during oral arguments and in the various written opinions, it was clear the legal sticking point was whether those diversity efforts represented a "compelling government interest."
The Bush administration supported the parents bringing suit against the choice plans. Solicitor General Paul Clement told the justices the two plans at issue represented "very stark racial quotas." He argued they were a "clear effort to get the schools to mimic the overall community" and that other "race-neutral" means to achieve classroom diversity should be used.

[KingOfSugarHill]

Jeah, to the dude who said "Ward Connerly" I was gonna say the same thing.

But these type of cats are necessary to the dialectic of Black America, they prove the stringency of White supremacist notions about the strange race that occupies "God's country". Whites seem afraid that Black people who are less than qualified will be selected over them, but they're apparently not afraid that qualified Black people will be overlooked because of their Blackness.

So you get a booty-lickin', pork-fed, belly-rubbin and bustin out his suit n*gga, who benefitted from affirmative action in the first place, to decry the "growing menace" of Black inadequacy, who is apparently aloof about the ideas that Whites still hold about Blacks, to become the champion of "human equality".

And of course, on the other end of the spectrum, you get people of the same description as above, who validate Whites' worse suspicions, by broadcasting their sexual antics, and playing the office buffoon, bumping Jeezy loud as f*** in the parking lot and intimidating crackers unnecessarily, who perpetuate their vapid existence with salaries purchased by Black blood and sacrifice.

This must result in intellectual confrontation between the races...cuz the n*gger jokes lie on the bedrock of sophisticated and sublimated prejudices against Black co-workers, that surface in the strangest of ways.

Peace.

[TWEEZE]

Originally Posted by Ceep It Real...

a bigger sellout than Condy?
Condy is taking the idea of "sellout" to an extent previously unknown...

I DESPISE THIS WOMEN WAS SHE MADE IN A LAB BY WHITE PEOPLE ?

[cristian]

Originally Posted by malachi12

What I am trying to say, even if he wanted to do something, white america won't allow it. White people like placing black people in certain position, so they wont show their racism. Black people in high position who want to do something end up dead....That is why Al Sharpton anit doingnothing.

Na hes a sociopath. That or he simply is strongly affected by the complex of being black in America. I tend to think its both but hte complex is the greater of the two. The complex of the "lazy N******" is doing some serious damage to some africans here. I fear you are being an apologist for him Malachi.