Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (224086)	10/14/2007 10:37:59 AM
From: LindyBill	10 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793601

It seems to me the black community should have had the right to pick whom they wanted to represent them on the supreme court, not have CT thrust upon them. K, I have been polite about it, but it's getting tiresome reading your liberal nonsense here. Please take it to another thread.

To: koan who wrote (224086)	10/14/2007 11:03:14 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793601

Clarence Thomas was put on the court by conservative white group, over the vociferous objections of the black community and as a way to get a conservative vote, but still be able to say, see we put a black man on we are not racists. And if th eleft said anything the republicans could jsut say see you are the racist. Dirty trick! You'll have to help me out here, I'm a little confused as to the nature of the dirty trick. Was it that a black judge is conservative, or that a conservative administration nominated him and tried to convince people that he was actually a black man even though he was conservative?

To: koan who wrote (224086)	10/14/2007 12:31:21 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793601

SC justices don't "represent" their ethnic communities. Do you figure Alito and Scalia are there to "represent" Italian Americans? Speaking of racism, what is it when a white liberal presumes to speak for black Americans, all of them? ---------------------------------- Clarence Thomas as done nothing to help the black community. Actually he thinks he is. He thinks affirmative action is bad for blacks and cheapens their efforts. Thanks to affirmative action, white liberals like you can implicitly call Thomas a dumb n***** and get away with it: He just rubber stamps whatever Scalia wants to do, seldom speaks and does not have the respect of his peers which refelects on blacks and makes them ashamed of him.

To: koan who wrote (224086)	10/14/2007 1:20:55 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793601

It is sad if seats on the Supreme Court are thought to be belonging to different groups. The justices should represent the constitution. Sadly that is likely an ideal whose time is past. I saw Clarence Thomas's appointment as a way to get a conservative voice on the court that would be difficult to "Bork". Clarence Thomas was not a nominee seat reserved for a minority or any other group.

To: koan who wrote (224086)	10/14/2007 2:00:08 PM
From: Stevefoder	Respond to of 793601

Clarence Thomas as done nothing to help the black community. He just rubber stamps whatever Scalia wants to do That is a very racist perspective. What makes you think it is not Scalia that takes orders from Thomas?

To: koan who wrote (224086)	10/14/2007 2:43:48 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	Respond to of 793601

As a civil rights attorney, Thurgood Marshall was a lion. As a member of the SC he was a clown. Koan, you really are lost in space so I'll try not to bother you in the future.

To: koan who wrote (224086)	10/16/2007 1:53:56 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 793601

Odd argument "With the release of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' memoir, 'My Grandfather's Son,' all of the old smears directed against him since his confirmation hearings 16 years ago are once again being trotted out," James Kirchick writes in the Los Angeles Times. "That he's 'incompetent.' That he's 'not qualified.' That the only reason he was appointed is because he's black. In other words, that he's a product of affirmative action or, more precisely, an 'affirmative-action hire,' said Mr. Kirchick, who is on the editorial staff of the New Republic. "Last week, for instance, liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson wrote: 'I believe in affirmative action, but I have to acknowledge there are arguments against it. One of the more cogent is the presence of Justice Clarence Thomas on the U.S. Supreme Court.' "Robinson's comment echoes many previous attacks. In 2000, for example, Newsweek columnist Anna Quindlen — another liberal who has written in support of affirmative action — declared that Thomas' 'judicial resume was mediocre; he was chosen because he was conservative and black, an affirmative-action hire by an administration that eschewed affirmative action.' "Many liberal Democrats aren't willing to say out loud what Robinson and Quindlen wrote so clearly. After all, they're conditioned to defend racial preferences, which they insist do not promote 'incompetent' or 'unqualified' people. But that doesn't mean they don't think it. Even The American Prospect magazine, a liberal journal that sees its mission as 'beating back the right wing,' ran an article two years ago calling Thomas the 'most visible affirmative action hire in all the land, a token black nominee whose lack of qualifications was so painfully outed during his confirmation hearings.' "How can you support a policy of racial preferences and then attack one of its supposed beneficiaries as undeserving? This, ultimately, is the intrinsic hypocrisy of the Thomas bashers."