HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Read the Most Brutal Para... » Reply #25

Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #12)

Fri Jun 26, 2015, 11:37 AM

25. There's a definite answer to that question:

The reason Thomas was put on the SCOTUS was...

...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 highly-visible 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.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
ismnotwasm Jun 2015 OP
Agschmid Jun 2015 #1
Orrex Jun 2015 #10
6chars Jun 2015 #23
Betty Karlson Jun 2015 #2
derby378 Jun 2015 #29
Betty Karlson Jun 2015 #30
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2015 #3
ismnotwasm Jun 2015 #5
bullwinkle428 Jun 2015 #4
The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2015 #8
Lint Head Jun 2015 #6
malthaussen Jun 2015 #7
Johonny Jun 2015 #9
Curmudgeoness Jun 2015 #11
kelliekat44 Jun 2015 #12
LineLineReply There's a definite answer to that question:
JHB Jun 2015 #25
boston bean Jun 2015 #13
msanthrope Jun 2015 #14
boston bean Jun 2015 #16
msanthrope Jun 2015 #20
boston bean Jun 2015 #21
kairos12 Jun 2015 #15
boston bean Jun 2015 #26
Live and Learn Jun 2015 #17
KamaAina Jun 2015 #18
dmr Jun 2015 #19
etherealtruth Jun 2015 #22
arcane1 Jun 2015 #24
SwankyXomb Jun 2015 #34
WDIM Jun 2015 #27
RobinA Jun 2015 #28
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2015 #31
Behind the Aegis Jun 2015 #32
ncteechur Jun 2015 #33
Gothmog Jun 2015 #35
Please login to view edit histories.