Opinions and musings on religion, philosophy, science, politics, and life from a conservative Catholic neurosurgeon.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
A celebration of Justice Thomas
National Review On Line has a very nice symposium marking the 20th anniversary of Clarence Thomas' tenure on the Supreme Court. Thomas is an originalist, with a deep respect for the literal meaning of the Constitution and for the actual intent of the Framers. His opinions are eloquent and meticulously reasoned. He has disdain for the concept of "living Constitution", which is an unconstitutional tactic to bestow upon liberal shibboleths the patina of law. A "living" Constitution is no constitution, but mere rule by judges.
Thomas' confirmation hearings were indeed a "high-tech lynching". Liberals ambushed him with slander about decade-old sexual harassment. It was perhaps the pinnacle of filthy leftist politics. Thomas was a black man who left the liberal Democrat plantation, and the party of slavery-Jim Crow-lynchings-and government dependency doesn't like black men who think for themselves.
Thomas continues to be subjected to vilification by the left. He is a courageous man and a superb Justice. May God bless him, and I pray that he has many more years of distinguished service to our country on the Supreme Court.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Oh noes! In the very first "symposium" piece Thomas is compared to... Hugo Black! Mwahahaha!ReplyDelete
Thomas is a corrupt lackey, who through his wife has made $700,000 from the heritage foundation. Imagine the right-wing uproar if a liberal judge’s spouse received that kind of cash, unreported, from Move-On.org. Thomas should be impeached.ReplyDelete
Thomas is one of the most honest men in Washington. His wife has a job. Big deal.
Funny that you yawn when a Supreme Court justice is an anti-Catholic bigot and applies KKK jurisprudence to the First Amendment, but a Catholic black conservative is a "lackey" (didn't you mean 'lawn jockey'?) and should be impeached because his wife has a job.
Why do you guys make your odious ideology so obvious?
[Oh noes! In the very first "symposium" piece Thomas is compared to... Hugo Black! Mwahahaha!]
There were aspects of Black's jurisprudence that were originalist and conservative, and he is to be commended for that.
His Establishment Clause jurisprudence was execrable.
You can take the Democrat out of the Klan, but you can't take the Klan out of the Democrat.
If God doesn't exist, how come I found my keys?ReplyDelete
If God didn't exist, you wouldn't exist.
I doubt there has ever been a larger conflict of interest in the history of the American Judiciary. The fact that you simply dismiss it as “his wife having a job” makes a mockery of the whole concept of conflict of interest. The level of intellectual dishonesty you are willing to display in support of your religious and political goals is simply breathtaking.ReplyDelete
Right. I'm being lectured by a lefty Democrat-- an ideology and a party in which 'conflict of interest' is the modus operandi.
The Chicago Democrat mob currently occupies the White House. Can you name a corrupt city or state political machine that is not Democrat?
Thomas' wife has a long history of advocacy, which predates his marriage to her.
There is no grandfather clause for conflict of interest. As for the “everybody’s doing it” defense, it may be the favorite of high school girls, but when you do it, it's just laughable.ReplyDelete
Allegations of "conflict of interest" by a partisan of a party that exists only as a machine to leverage conflict of interest into political power (the Democratic party) is pretty damn funny.
Why don't you call William Daley (Obama's chief of staff and Chicago political gangster) to complain about Thomas' wife? Why not call Democrat politicians across the county who take public employee union money to win elections and then enact legislation to pay off public employee unions and use the government to collect union dues involuntarily from "members".
The problem isn't Thomas' wife.
You're a hypocrite.
“But a Catholic black conservative is a "lackey" (didn't you mean 'lawn jockey'?)”ReplyDelete
No, I meant just what I said, but I’m certainly not surprised that you couldn’t resist slipping in that racist expression.
Why is it that it’s always Republicans who talk about blacks on the plantation, dependant, and unable to think for themselves? Sounds Racist to me.ReplyDelete
Oh, and all those KKK Democrats, the last of them switched to the Republican Party after the Civil rights act of 1964.
[the last of the KKK Democrats switched to the Republicans after 1964...]
That's pretty funny. There are and were no "Republican" KKK'ers. The Klan was an enforcement arm of the Democratic party, and in the 1960's were by no means restricted to the South (one of the largest Klan Klaverns was in Suffolk County on Long Island where I live.)
The KKK hated Republicans. HATED. Claiming the KKK'ers joined the Republican party is like claiming they joined the NAACP or the Catholic Church.
The growth of the Republican party in the south is largely the result of increasing incomes and education in the south.
Succinctly, when the south was Democrat, it was loaded with KKK bigots.
When it became Republican, the KKK bigots went away.
Where do you get your information, Conservapedia? Because they don’t even have an entry for “Southern Strategy”.ReplyDelete
There’s absolutely no doubt that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 drove the most racist elements of the southern electorate into the open arms of the Republicans where they remain to this day. I’m not saying all republicans are racist, but ask yourself, who do you think your average hard-core racist is going to support, Sarah Palin, or Nancy Pelosi?
The Racism of southern Democrats 50 plus years ago has absolutely nothing to do with modern political realities and you know it. Your attempts to smear liberals and Democrats by repeatedly bringing up KKK affiliations from the first half of the last century may work on your Fox News watching sycophantic fans, but I’m not buying it.
The KKK hated Republicans. HATED. Claiming the KKK'ers joined the Republican party is like claiming they joined the NAACP or the Catholic Church.ReplyDelete
The second KKK (the 1920s) was spread all around the country, not localized in the South. It was most prominent in Indiana. The Grand Dragon of KKK in Indiana and northern states was one D. C. Stephenson. He started out as a Democrat but in 1923 became a Republican. Don't tell me he hated himself.
@anon (why don't you anon guys use initials or something so we can tell you apart?)ReplyDelete
[The second KKK (the 1920s) was spread all around the country, not localized in the South. It was most prominent in Indiana. The Grand Dragon of KKK in Indiana and northern states was one D. C. Stephenson. He started out as a Democrat but in 1923 became a Republican. Don't tell me he hated himself.]
Stephenson makes my point, not yours. He became a Republican in 1923 only after he resigned from the national KKK, which would never accept Republicans. He became a Republican in an effort to start his own version of the KKK, unassociated with the 100% Democrat KKK of the past. He did so largely because the political establishment in Indiana was Republican (and still is-- it's a very Republican state), and he had more power as a Republican.
He had to leave the national KKK to become a Republican.
Egnor 1, anon 0
So, Stephenson's branch of KKK was kosher because he was Republican? Articulate your point, genius.ReplyDelete
The KKK was a Democrat organization since its inception. It was formed specifically out of hatred for Republicans. Stephenson, a lifelong Democrat to that point, wanted power, and in Indiana that meant being a Republican.
So Stephenson broke his affiliation with the National Klans, became a Republican, and started his own version of the Klan in Indiana using influence in the Republican party, rather than the Democrat party, which was the home of the National KKK.
The KKK historically hated: Republicans (Lincoln's party), blacks, Catholics, and Jews.
The Klan has a long history of intimidating and murdering Republicans. The first US congressman ever assassinated was James M. Hinds, and Arkansas Republican, who was assassinated by a Klansman in 1868.
Summary: Stephenson was an outlier, and became a Republican so he could wield more power in heavily Republican Indiana. He had to leave the National KKK in order to become a Republican.
Egnor 2, anon 0.
These are both own goals, man. You are confusing two different klans.ReplyDelete
KKK 1 (1860s) was indeed Southern, Democratic and anti-Republican. KKK 2 (1920s) was anti-Catholic and spread all over the US. Indiana had the highest proportion of population involved in KKK 2.
KKK 2 was heavily Democrat and shared to a substantial degree KKK 1's hated of Republicans. Birth of a Nation was instrumental in the founding of KKK 2, and was an explicitly pro Democrat and anti Republican film.
Just admit it. The KKK was the enforcement arm of the Democratic party in many regions of the country for many years. The fact that there were an occasional rogue local KKK that involved Republicans makes the point that the KKK was primarily Democrat.
You're so funny, Egnor. You have no idea about most subjects you cover. Did they teach you that in med school?ReplyDelete
KKK 2 had both Democrats and Republicans as its members. The division was more along the racial and religious lines than party affiliations.
Stephenson was no rogue outlier. He was a highly influential politician in Indiana (and beyond) who said about himself "I am the law," and that was no stretch. And he was not an exception. Not at all.
Representative Albert Johnson was a powerful Republican, Chairman of the House Committee on Immigration. He had a strong anti-immigrant stance. His reelection in 1926 was one of the top goals of the national KKK. That doesn't square with KKK 2 being anti-Republican.
Good try, though.
“Why would you associate Palin with racism?”ReplyDelete
Because she’s a Republican you ding-dong, and my whole point was that hard-core racists support Republicans. She doesn’t have to be a racist, she just has to be a Republican. My God, arguing with you is like arguing with a six year old that thinks they’re being clever.
I don’t know what planet you live on to deny the fact that conservatives are more racist than liberals. I work at a hi-tech company and the only people there who ever make racially disparaging remarks are the self proclaimed conservatives. Perhaps the fact that you work in an ivory tower surrounded by educated liberals and the occasional educated conservative insulates you from reality, but in the real world of the democrat hating conservative base racism is alive and well.
I suppose now your going to tell me that all those racist commenters on the Fox News website and my blue-collar Republican co-workers are all liberal agent provocateurs funded by George Soros.
Plus he wrote this: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1276.pdf, which should please the good doctor.ReplyDelete