General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDURHAM D
(32,604 posts)Has anyone done this type of thing on him?
RamblingRose
(1,037 posts)erronis
(15,170 posts)and there would be some subjectivity.
Obviously the FedSoc would have different grades than the ACLU or ABA.
niyad
(113,035 posts)here.
JHB
(37,153 posts)...NOT because he was the most qualified jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black conservative jurist. He wasn't.
He was the most qualified black conservative with reliable but obfuscatable views on abortion & other subjects, and was young enough that he'd stay on the court for decades.
The Democratic senators were initially ready to give him a pass, since 1) they didn't look forward to another SC nomination battle, and 2) initially the black community was receptive to Thomas -- not enthusiastic, but not inclined to oppose -- and a fight against him wouldn't be well received.
At the time I thought Thomas should have been voted down just because of his lackluster record and ignoring conflict of interest (Thomas failed to recuse himself in a case involving the Ralston Purina company, where his political mentor Sen. John Danforth owned millions in stock and had brothers on the board of directors. Thomas' decision in favor of Purina directly benefited his pals).
Black opinion didn't shift until later in the process, after Thurgood Marshall made his "a black snake is still a snake" comment. The senators were finally forced to take a harder line when the harassment charges leaked out, and giving Thomas a pass would piss off another Democratic constituency: women fighting workplace harassment.
But all that happened too late: by that point conservatives were ginned up in support and the rest of the establishment didn't want another high-profile fight, so the Thomas hearings were kept to a he-said-she-said with Anita Hill (Angela Wright was shunted off to the side), giving the senators their excuse to just put it behind them.
So here we are, a quarter-century later, and he's still a lackluster jurist who ignores conflicts of interest, and is a reliable conservative operative in the courts.
ShazzieB
(16,265 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2022, 06:52 PM - Edit history (1)
Three decades, and counting. *weary sigh*
Poppy Bush knew exactly what he was doing when he picked a 43 year old for that SCOTUS seat.
IronLionZion
(45,380 posts)Poppy's first appointee turned out to be liberal
JHB
(37,153 posts)I haven't researched that part, but my general recollection was that it was a few years later that they'd figured out that Souter wasn't the ideological operative they'd thought he was when they'd nominated him.
For the Thomas hearings, it was more a case of picking a black conservative to replace Thurgood Marshal. However, most black conservative jurists at the time were prone to having "conservatively incorrect" views in civil rights matters. But Senator Danforth said "i know a guy", and the rest is sorry history.
appmanga
(566 posts)...makes her look like Chief Justice Taft. Just part of his biography from Oyez.org:
"Thomas transferred to College of the Holy Cross and graduated in 1971 with a bachelors degree in English Literature and a passion for civil rights that drove him to pursue a career in law. He attended Yale Law School as one of the first students to benefit from the open admissions program that offered positions to black students in all-white colleges. Years later, Thomas would grow to abhor affirmative action, as hiring partners and other white colleagues would credit his accomplishments not to hard work and dedication, but to the color of his skin and the measures schools took to recruit black students. Upon graduation, Thomas began working in the office of the Missouri Attorney General after being admitted to the Missouri bar in 1974. In 1977, he worked for Senator John C. Danforth as his legislative assistant. After four years working with Danforth, President Reagan appointed Thomas as the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education. A year later, Reagan propelled his career even further by appointing him Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. By this point in Thomas life, he was still living with severe debt from student loans, an issue made worse by his addiction to alcohol. Once Thomas decided he could no longer afford to drink as he did, he quit drinking all together. Thomas served at the EEOC for eight years, and in 1990, President George H. W. Bush nominated Thomas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit.
As a 43-year-old with barely one year of experience on the judiciary under his belt, Clarence Thomas was quite young and inexperienced when George H. W. Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1991".
https://www.oyez.org/justices/clarence_thomas
Edited even further to add: I've always thought of Thomas as one of America's greatest cowards, and 30 plus years on the Supreme Court has validated that. I can't think of one decision where he's ever ruled in favor of the less powerful over the more so, and his rulings in Fourth Amendment and prisoners' rights cases are the stuff of "Twilight Zone" episodes. Turds like him and Tim Scott think they're brave because they go against "the liberal plantation orthodoxy" when they've traded in their ability to make a difference for the comforting cloak of personal gain and the "let 'em eat cake" conservative mindset. I don't now if I have as much disdain for any other people on Earth (including a fat-assed orange idiot grifter) as I have for them.
Thunderbeast
(3,400 posts)F#@kin' Christfosciests!
DinahMoeHum
(21,771 posts). . .she gets pregnant.
SergeStorms
(19,156 posts)milestogo
(16,829 posts)peppertree
(21,595 posts)The same way Thomass betrays minorities, and Alito betrays working class people.
Demovictory9
(32,419 posts)usonian
(9,680 posts)Ivy League?
Calista241
(5,585 posts)Instead of an 'Ivy League' school. Notre Dame is one of the best law schools in the country. And most of the 'Ivy League' is living on a reputation, especially the schools not named Harvard, Yale or Columbia.
While I wish it wasn't Barrett, and that she wasn't on the court, I think it's good to have judges from different educational backgrounds. All of them being from Yale, Harvard or Columbia isn't the best IMO.
usonian
(9,680 posts)Especially when most senators and congresspeople are law school graduates, and half of them are acting in pure cult mode!
Objectivity compels me to believe that your education, religion or "pedigree" is evidenced by your behavior, rather than anything else.
And that's an individual choice, "papers" aside.
Hugin
(33,036 posts)Critical jurisprudence.
marieo1
(1,402 posts)My opinion............GET RID OF HER AND KAVANAUGH!!
onenote
(42,535 posts)William O Douglas. Felix Frankfurter. Louis Brandeis. Harlan Finke Stone.
Also, more recently, Lewis Powell and Elena Kagan.
It's a stupid meme.
Skittles
(153,111 posts)nothing more
walkingman
(7,577 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/federal_judiciary/resources/supreme-court-nominations/amy-coney-barrett/
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/government_affairs_office/2020-10-15-aba-scfj-barrett-final-statement.pdf
onenote
(42,535 posts)BY the measures in the meme, Elena Kagan is unqualified. And William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis.
There are folks here who think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are qualified to be SCOTUS Justices, but by the measures applied in the meme, that wouldn't be the case.
That meme is almost as stupid as Carlson asking about Jackson's LSAT scores.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,131 posts)Which she did not mention in her application.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/14/anti-abortion-group-indiana-amy-coney-barrett
peppertree
(21,595 posts)That would be Mr. Pubic Hair (or Scalito).
Escurumbele
(3,374 posts)For anyone else? NO!, but for republicans she is the ideal woman, one who obeys and doesn't question. I bet anyone that in her case the one who makes the decisions, who decides how she votes is her husband.
BobTheSubgenius
(11,558 posts)Who would even accept a nomination when they HAVE to know that they are barely more qualified than a student at Harvard Law? And that student may have far greater potential, to boot.