thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, period.  (look it up)
this alone is a huge disqualifier and why obama - a constitutional law expert in his own right, found this justice of the supreme court a disappointment.

yeah, i know what "star decisis" means; and he was even criticized by justice scalia before his confirmation hearing. My point was, which you completely missed, was the irony in Obama's criticism.

The fact is that no matter how smart, intellegent, charasmatic, good looking, articulate that Obama is; he is still not 'experienced enough" to be the President, period!

Obama is definitely not ready to be President. He doesn't yet know what his own principles are. He talks one side one day and the next day he has done a complete 180. He does this on major issues, on all major issues. I just wish he'd have ONE opinion that he wasn't willing to run away from the moment it looked like it might upset some voters. He has no true convictions about anything CONCRETE and he seems to have an unfortunate proclivity to pick questionable and unsavory friends and mentors. I don't think anyone knows who Obama REALLY is and that, to my mind, makes him dangerous.

Not believing in stare decisis does not disqualify Thomas--and, really, wouldn't disqualify a justice in the eyes of folks like Toe, if the justice was Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

One could reason is that a strict adherence to stare decisis would have preserved slavery (as far as the judicial branch was concerned), the 3/5ths clause, Jim Crow laws, segregation and a lot more. In fact, stare decisis should only have any bearing on legislation regarding issues which to the consitution does not speak, and given that broad nature of much of the constitution (hey, the court found a right to abortion in there) that's kind of hard to do.

From a strictly common sense view, why do we believe justices should be bound by bad decisions, bad law, or even unconsitutional decisions, just because a majority of the court voted a particular way on an issue 20 years ago? What happened to "a living, breathing constitution"? What happened to adjusting the law, and legal rulings, based on the real world around us now, instead of what a bunch of old white men in robes decided a hundred years ago?

Like most things on the left, stare decisis is really a thing of convenience. Invoked when they want to use it, or it protects some sacred cow of theirs, and dismissed or ignored when it might work against them. Clarence Thomas's view, fortunately, is not selective--he says there's no real point to it, and, quite frankly, he's right.

Finally, the left hates Clarence Thomas because he's conservative, he's black, and he is brilliant. Obama would melt under the burning radiance of Thomas's powerful brain. That's why the lefties complain that he's lazy, shiftless, and stupid. Because they despise conservative African Americans more than they despise conservatives in Hollywood, or talk radio. And so it's smear, smear, smear.

Clarence rocks. And, unlike Thomas on stare decisis, Obama cannot be straightforward about his real objections. "I wouldn't have nominated Clarence Thomas, because he's a conservative, and conservatives are evil and bad for America." But no, Barry has to say: "Um, Thomas is, you know, not that bright, unlike that white guy, Scalia, and, uh, lazy. And drinks too much Colt 45. I have it on good authority."

do not attribute words to obama that were never said, kevin

- your quotation marks are in not just in error- you again wish to lump an entire group of people based upon your narrow minded thoughts on how progressives think.  you seem to enjoy being the poster boy for the "i take pride in my ignorance" group.

Toe's comments fit the mold very well of 'liberal replies'. They usually first say how ignorant you are. Maybe they hope the casual 'independent' who sees it will say 'Oh, that guy was stupid, I don't want to be called that so I better belive what Toe says'.

I got tons of it where I tried to post some liberal criticism on Amazon. I just found your site while doing a Wikipedia search for someone there who claimed they didn't know what 'lunatic fringe' was. You're the only right wing site they found to counter DailyKos I guess.

Here's my battle that is finally attracting some non-libs.

http://www.amazon.com/tag/politics/forum/ref=cm_cd_pg_newest?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3QSZRUL93V8&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1OMUWMHYLJ9F9&displayType=tagsDetail

and this:

C'mon Americans, take back the internet starting right here
http://www.amazon.com/tag/politics/forum/ref=cm...>

TOE -"thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, period.  (look it up)
this alone is a huge disqualifier and why obama - a constitutional law expert in his own right, found this justice of the supreme court a disappointment."
Thanks Toe I learned two new things today. What stare decisis is, and that you still TOE the liberal party line.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31117-2004Oct13.html
But Scalia's pointed comments to Foskett complicate Bush's support for Thomas considerably. Specifically, Scalia told Foskett that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." Clarifying his remark, Scalia added that "if a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it right. I wouldn't do that."
   Some one correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but I get from this that Thomas believes in getting it right when it comes to the constitution? But Scalia, believes what was ruled in the past under stare decisis should be left no matter how wrong it is??
“Far better known is Thomas's concurrence in United States v. Lopez, where, alone among the justices, he expressed a willingness to reexamine fundamental aspects of the court's jurisprudence under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This clause -- granting Congress the authority to regulate commerce "among the several states" -- is the principal power used by the federal government to protect civil rights, worker safety and the environment. Thomas's views, if adopted by the court, would call into question fundamental statutes in all these areas. As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted in a separate opinion, "the Court as an institution and the legal system as a whole have an immense stake in the stability of our Commerce Clause jurisprudence as it has evolved to this point. Stare decisis operates with great force in counseling us not to call in question the essential principles now in place respecting the congressional power to regulate transactions of a commercial nature."
   I would have to say that I agree with Thomas, in the fact that while it is an important concept in order to make law efficient in following Stare Decisis, we should not just follow it blindly. After all Judges are only human, that would be like a president getting into office, and being handcuffed by what all the other presidents have done.
   I would think that you would like this Toe, aren’t you the one that is always saying people should not just blindly follow others? I don’t believe that a justice should just follow others. I believe that the bases for every law should be looked at, and these people should be making sure that it is right, and not just following it.
   I just want to make sure I got you right. So your telling me that Obama is a strict believer in following Stare Decisis, then that makes another reason that I don’t like the man. If he does not have the balls to look at something before just following it, if he does not have the balls to take a stand on something that has been established and say you know what I don’t agree with that, then where is the change?

"Reading a Thomas opinion can feel like hitting 100 mph on a deserted highway: thrilling (or terrifying, depending on your perspective) but still a bad idea. The excitement of approaching every constitutional question anew comes at the cost of a stab to our constitutional tradition. No president should accept this trade-off. "

  This was the last part of that article I listed above. I would have to disagree with this opinion. I would think that we would want out Justices, making sure that it is right, not just going along with it because that it the way we have always done it.

  I can think of a million things that I wish would have just been left alone, but due to progress and re thinking they have changed. While we might disagree with some change, I don't disagree with looking at it again and again to make sure that it is right.

Toe writes: "do not attribute words to obama that were never said, kevin"

I was paraphrasing. I think the implication of Obama's anti-Thomas comments was, all in all, pretty clear.

In the interest of full disclosure, nobody said anything about Colt 45, except me. Mmmmm.

I would sooner put Clarence Thomas in the president's seat before I would ever even considerTHAN OBAMA, THE ARROGANT. Each time Obama opens his mouth he sticks his elbow in it.  The  man is clueless.

I would sooner put Clarence Thomas in the president's seat before I would ever even consider  OBAMA, THE ARROGANT. Each time Obama opens his mouth he sticks his elbow in it.  The  man is clueless.

Just a few comments on Kevin S. Willis's post.

First, Justice Thomas is not the one who said he doesn't follow "stare decisis."  That was said by a political rival of his Justice Scalia.  Justice Thomas, the demon jurist in the eyes of the liberal elite, is a "strict interpretationalist."  That means he looks at case applies the words of the Constitution to that case and decides.

Too many of the justices apply political ideology and then use "constitutional extrapolation" to justify the result that sits best with them.  The hell with the Constitution, as you said Kevin, what happened to the living , breathing constitutional document, implying that it can develope and that there is something more than the words and their meaning.  It must evolve into a document that fits our needs not our ideals.

Not so fast constitutional extrapolationists, our Constitution was the single most important document for the benefit of humankind.  (Please exclude the Bible from this discussion, I conceed that point.)  Its relevance is in its simplicity.  If it needs to be living or breathing (changed) then there is a process to change it written right there in the words.  It bothers me that our schools do not teach constitutional law.  As a result, we have lost respect for the great experiment that is our nation.  We have Justices who legislate from the bench because our Congress does not have the fortitude to pass the laws that would resolve troubling issues.  The whole abortion debate is based on this distortion of the Constitution.  In Rowe v. Wade, the Court never found a right to an abortion.  Instead, a Justice who used to be the attorney for a hospital wrote a decision that recognized a "right to privacy."   That right, he said, exsisted in the pernumba of the bill of rights.  Look up that word and you will see the reasoning of the Court was based on protecting doctors from liability in performing abortions, not on a strict interpretation of the Constitution.  In protecting the doctors Blackmon invented a fundamental right to privacy that has been pulled out of thin air.  "Stare decisis" and constitutional extrapolation has further distorted the chain of cases in Webster and Planned Parenthood, so that the original intent of Rowe v Wade has been changed and rarely does the term "fetus viability" have any relevance.

Kevin says: What happened to adjusting the law based on the world around us, instead of what a bunch of old men in robes decided a hundred years ago. 
Don't mistake a conflict between "strict interpretationalists" and constitutional extrapolationists" as being a problem with the doctrine of "stare decisis."  I would point out that there are many examples of cases that follow one line of decisions and are overturned later.  Plessy is the most well known that gave rise to Brown v Board of Ed.  There are many other examples.  However, the doctrine of stare decisis also allows the Court to overturn any line of cases if there is a "special justification" to do so.  It is established caselaw.

Kevin, I didn't mean to pick on you.  I understand your points.  I just wanted to use your remarks to clarify certain issues relating to Constitutional Law.

Bravetruth,

I went to the site and read your entry.  A little out there but I know where you're going.  I tried to add my own comments but I couldn't unless I bought something from Amazon.com.  Although I don't mind supporting any capitalistic endeavor, I avoid supporting any business that promotes socialism.  Amazon doesn't measure up for me.

Keep up the good work.  Free speech is a constitutional right it is written in Article One of the Bill of Rights along with the Right to Assemble, Right to Exercise you own Religious Beliefs.

It is that last one the right to exercise your own religous beliefs that is most under seige right now, but that' sfor another time.

Michael, that's fine. All clarifications I agree with, as there are naturally limits to what one ends up putting in any given comment.

The fundamental point is that Clarence Thomas is a brilliant and productive jurist, and the whole "dumb and lazy" argument against him, or any variation there of, is clearly false on the face of it. They just don't like how he adjudicates, and they should say so--Obama included--rather than regurgitate leftist (and, some might argue, racist--or whatever name you choose to give the special brand of racism that is acceptable against "Uncle Toms") talking points on the Thomas appointment.

Go back and do more research and see how many Justices you can find who have been in their early 40s when appointed, or had only served ONE year as a Judge on any level.  Let alone one that matches on both counts. 

Not sure how many people reading this even remember what happened at the time, or if they just want to use it as an opportunity to jab at Obama on a different point, but people were not only outraged by the Anita Hill allegations (not interested in debating those), but also that Bush would leverage race to shift the ideological balance of the court. 

And even if you disagree with Obama on that opinion, everyone who is calling out his qualifications is doing the exact same thing.  Except the odds are that our education and work experience probably isn't anywhere near as relevent to critiquing a President (or CEO) as a Constitutional Law professor might be to critique someone on....Constitutional Law.

it's not even necessary to use the subject of Clarence Thomas's appointment as a means to jab Obama.  Obama has no qualifications, little experience, and some radical ideas  nuf said, granny has spoken.

So what is the actual point of this article?  Is it a defense of Thomas' appointment?  Even if you agree with his rulings over the years you can't reasonably say when appointed he possessed comparable experience to any other Justices in the last 100+ years.  Imagine if the situation were reversed, and Clinton were trying to fill a seat held by a conservative of minority background with one of the youngest and least experienced liberal nominees ever...hoping America's desire to maintain minority representation would win out.

Is it really any more "ironic" for a Constitutional Law Professor to critique a Justice nominee than it is for any of us to insist that we know which types of experience best suit a person to be President.  Sure we often hear that state Governors fare best in General Elections, but how has the last Governor done? 

And by the way, the constant declaration that Obama isn't experienced enough would make a lot more sense if people also sited the relevant experience that they feel makes McCain a stronger candidate.

@Suburban Moderate

The point of this article is quite simple. it's to point out the irony and arrogance of Obama's comments about Clarence Thomas.  And, also hightlight the fact that he really is not qualified to be President. Period.

If it's so simple why are you all over the place with points that don't relate.  You try to defend Thomas' resume for being a Justice by comparing it to Obama's resume for President.  That's like apples and grapefruits.  If you want to demonstrate that Obama is wrong you should focus on finding other Justices who had complete and total lack of experience who performed well over their careers.  I can tell you right now that you won't find any.  Then you can shove it in Obama's face.

If you want to say Obama isn't qualified you should really focus on comparing him to other Presidents, rather than give a list of irrelevant posts Thomas has held.  Or the really good choice would be to give a laundry list of all the ways that McCain's experience better suits him for the position.  Oh wait, that list hasn't made it into any of your posts has it?

URGENT:  (Please share this info)
Philip J. Berg, Esq. Files Federal Lawsuit Requesting Obama Be Removed as a Candidate as he does not meet the Qualifications for President.


http://www.nextgenerationcorp.com/NextGenBlog/?...

Adrian this is big big news, thanks for the heads up. I have been getting e-mails on this all night!!!

This is going to be an extremely interesting week.. this plus the circus and riot in Denver all under one big top

you people crack me up- just how stupid are you anyway? 
why don't you actually look up the facts instead of buying bogus email noise?  just try thinking for once.
good grief.

first of all- obama is an american citizen born in hawaii.
secondly- under kenyan law- one cannot hold "duel citizenship"
third: get a life, for gods sake!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert




The truth about Barack's birth certificate

Lie:
Obama Is Not a Natural Born Citizen
Truth:
Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21st, 1959. Obama became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”




http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/behindthesmears
http://www.newsweek.com/id/151621
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp
http://www.truthfightsback.com/site/index

DO YOUR HOMEWORK PEOPLE.  YOU REALLY LOOK STUPID.

TOE, personally i think there enough negatives regarding Obama without resorting to false information.  nuf said

find the false information, linda- find it.
then prove it.
with reliable unbiased sources.
you cannot.

find the false information, linda- find it.
then prove it.
with reliable unbiased sources.
you cannot.

READ MY FINGERS, I SAIDDDDDDDDDDDDD, I THINK THERE ARE ENOUGH NEGATIVES REGARDING OBAMA WITHOUT RESORTING TO FALSE INFORMATION.. DIDN'T I?  WHAT PART OF THAT WERE YOU NOT ABLE TO PARSE?

I WAS AGREEDING WITH YOU.  PAY ATTENTION, IF YOU CAN .

PS, I THINK YOU NEED SOME DOWN TIME IN A PADDED ROOM TOE.  YOU ARE WAY TOO HYSTERICAL.

linda, in your post (22) you blindly thanked "adrian" for placing here more lies in the post prior to yours.  the host here has placed numerous lies and misrepresentations regarding obama, his positions  and his statements.  the bulk of the conservative reply here lack the honesty or brains to seek accurate information.  i could understand if these people just came right out and said, "i could never vote for a black man for president"-somewhere in the back of their heads they have learned that saying this would show their bigotry- so instead of this, they run all about like chicken little, repeating lies that they have heard on the EIB network or Fox News or in faceless email and repeat it here.  everyone here has the same ability as i to research and fact-find before passing along this "information".  honestly, linda, if you had done this rather than praise "adrian" for linking to yet another one of these lie-filled personal blogs your comments to me regarding my need for a rubber room and some down time would not be posted.  the blog to which  "adrian"  made reference has been passed along to a number of sites whose only business is to showcase debunked information, and the source of these lies.

color me done.  i have learned one important thing from this, never give a hysteric a podium.  blah blah blah..

toe, and all the drivel you spew and "cite" comes straight from Obama's website. WTF? I don't get it.

jason said: "I don't get it."

exactly.

Jason, expecting someone like Toe to get independent information (it's much easier for him to plagiarize from BHO's website, hey Biden is good at plagiarizing too) is like expecting the Chinese government to admit half of their female Olympic gymnasts are under 16.  Won't happen.

applauding= thank you Beth :-))

I agree that TOE is a bit hard to deal with.  But as far as this response chain goes I would like to make a few comments.

First, Obama is not qualified to serve as president.  We need not go further than Bill "the first black president" Clinton.  He was not qualified to be president.   Well, then again, let's go back 8 years.  George "W" was not qualified to be president.  His experience included several failed businesses and a short stint as Texas'Gov.  I remember thnking thank goodness that he has Cheney to help him.  Wow, how my views have changed since then.  I have become much more conservative and resentful of the Bush administration and what he has done to
the Republican Party.

Second, the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is one of the things that a president does.  When Thomas was appointed there was no mystery in what was happening.  The leading leftists can cry all they want but he has been the most consistant jurist on all matters by applying the strict interpretationalist approach to the constitution.  I thank God that he is there.  He also has set a new standard for Black Americans and Americans of color.  He has thrown down the gauntlet and challenged the status quo to stop coddeling the racism peddlers whose philosophy is that blacks are victims and to help them we must create ineffective government programs that perpetuate their misery.  That is a basic difference between Conservatives and Socialists. 

Finally, many conservatives buy the standard media garbage when it comes to the presidential race.  The truth is that the Republicans have placed as their candidate a person who fails to inspire.  The Democrats on the other hand have placed a candidate who can actually speak and inject inflection in the proper places.  I don't view him as the messiah and I am quite sure that he will not solve the world's problems, but one thing that he will do.  He will make history.  He will tell the universe that the greatest country in the world that started out as a slave nation has now grown up and announced that it doesn't matter what your skin color is, anyone can live the American Dream.  No more excuses, no more poor pitiful victim parties, there is a message inscribed in the United States Constitution that says "in our country all people ARE created equal."  This is a great moment in American History.

Of course, once that happens hold on to your wallets.  Four years and out.  The second Conservative Revolution takes place.  Hold on, it's going to be a wild ride.

Please do the right thing and dump as many of the socialist congressional candidates as you can.  That is much more important than voting for a moderate president.

i don't know what your problem with me might be michael.
i know that this might be difficult for you to fathom,  but not everyone agrees with your version of this justice:

"It is unlikely that any nominee of any president would be confirmed to the Supreme Court if he or she admitted to a disbelief in the doctrine of established case law. Court watchers know that Scalia's statement about Thomas goes to the heart of a jurisprudential chasm that separates the court's two most conservative justices. Scalia is fiercely conservative, but by and large he judges within the parameters of the rules laid down by predecessors. Thomas rarely appears to feel so confined."
"The proof is in 35 lone Thomas opinions that express a willingness to reexamine a breathtaking range of well-settled constitutional law. A little-known but telling example is a 1998 opinion by Thomas that expresses a willingness to reexamine the court's opinion in Calder v. Bull, which decided that the Constitution's prohibition against retroactive punishments applies only to criminal (not civil) laws. Regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the case, it is a unanimous 1798 opinion by the court that has not been seriously challenged in more than 200 years. It is the dictionary definition of established case law."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31117-2004Oct13.html 
"After all the twisted racial history of the United States Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas was confirmed by the Senate with the smallest margin of victory in more than 100 years, with little professional scrutiny and with a level of manipulative political rancor that diminished everyone directly involved. The effect on Thomas, we learn from this impeccably researched and probing biography, was to reinforce the chronic contradictions with which he has long lived."
"Thus, although he seriously believes that his extremely conservative legal opinions are in the best interests of African-Americans, and yearns to be respected by them, he is arguably one of the most viscerally despised people in black America. It is incontestable that he has benefited from affirmative action at critical moments in his life, yet he denounces the policy and has persuaded himself that it played little part in his success. He berates disadvantaged people who view themselves as victims of racism and preaches an austere individualism, yet harbors self-pitying feelings of resentment and anger at his own experiences of racism. His ardent defense of states’ rights would have required him to uphold Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, not to mention segregated education, yet he lives with a white wife in Virginia. He is said to dislike light-skinned blacks, yet he is the legal guardian of a biracial child, the son of one of his numerous poor relatives. He frequently preaches the virtues of honesty and truthfulness, yet there is now little doubt that he lied repeatedly during his confirmation hearings — not only about his pornophilia and bawdy humor but, more important, about his legal views and familiarity with cases like Roe v. Wade."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/books/review/Patterson-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

TOE:  There is now little doubt that your comments are off the top of your liberal head and are grounded with proof from liberal blogs and liberal media bastions.  I do appreciate that your remarks directed to me seem to take on a more intellectual tone instead of an attack the person arguments that you have used in most of your replies.  Try to stay with that tone.  No one cares that your views are different, they don't like to be berated by someone who they don't hold in high regard.  Enough of the mannerly discussions.

In post 9 Jarrodm gives us an article that appeard in the Washington Post.  The discussion of stare decisis began with Toe's post one and then Jarrodm in post 9.  My response to those comments was to point out that Justice Thomas has never stated to anyone that he doesn't believe in stare decisis.  If you read and understood my comments I tried to point out that the Supreme Court IS A POLITICAL BODY.  They use legal arguments to make political decisions.  Justice Thomas is clearly on the far right side of those arguments and believes in state's rights over federalism.  That political discussion has been a part of Constitutional Jurisprudence since Marbury, long before Calder v Bull.
My views are not settled after reading an article by Doug Kendall, an environmantal law attorney who is the executive director of the Community Rights Counsel.  It's not hard to figure out how he's going to think.
 
Finally, your arguments that Justice Thomas has been found to be a liar doesn't hold water either.  It is merely your view, not mine.  You are entitled to your view but don't use opinion as fact.  That seems to be one of the ways that you defend certain positions.  No hard feelings just expressing my opinion.

"stare decisis, period" gimme a friggin break. Look it up on wiki or trillions of legal documents desperately seeking to disambiguate the crushingly obvious?? Just like a flaming liberal to have Red Herring Flambe for the entrée.

As someone who is similar to Mr. Justice Thomas, in so far as we both have African American ancestry, some years as federal employees in the field of civil and equal rights, and a childhood shaped by family challenges and lower economic status, these and other similarities allow me to presume a sort of kinship on a personal level. This feeling of commonality, although it is with someone whom I have yet to meet and know of only through published accounts, produces an extrapolated notion that I might have an insight about him or into his mind. Nonetheless, I am taking a leap of faith into that dubious breach. 


Mr. Justice Thomas' judicial experiences on one hand are irrelevant when we remember that some outstanding justices were not lawyers. Therefore the extent of his judicial experience may be discounted so long as other qualities speak in his favor. Those other justices have been elected officials for example. We may also discount having been an elected official because it has been many years since a justice has not been a lawyer. Perhaps most relevant in terms of qualities, is the context of his nomination by President H.W. Bush. The Reagan years had been devastating in terms of Republican infiltration into African American communities. Cultural warfare and wedge issues around civil rights left a seemingly irreparable breach between the bulk of African Americans and Republican ideology. Into that background, then President Bush seemed determined to address these estrangements, blunt the culture wars, and depart from some of Reagan's dismissiveness of race matters. Mr. Thomas' elevation to Mr. Justice Thomas fit those aims. In addition, as an African American ascending to the seat left by Mr. Justice Marshall, it was Mr. Justice Thomas' experiences as an African American that would continue that perspective as Marshall had although from a conservative Republican viewpoint.


So, the question of experience is: How has Mr. Justice Thomas' African American experience informed his contribution on the Court? Of course, this question is not about some clumsy racial quota. As we know, some outstanding justices brought to bear their experiences as elected officials or learned jurists or their gender or religion. As such the African American experience is simply another kind of background that informs a justice's understanding of everyday life. Measuring Obama's assessment of Mr. Justice Thomas against the experience criteria as I have described it, one my come to a similar conclusion. One might say that Madame Justice Ginsberg and former Madame Justice O'Conner can be seen as reflective of the viewpoint of everyday women. One might say that Mr. Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts can be seen as reflective of lawyers considered learned jurists. One could not say that Mr. Justice Thomas can be seen as reflective of everyday African Americans.


In sum, little if any experiential evidence seems to recommend Mr. Justice Thomas, except being lucky enough to be nearby when the time was fortuitous.

It sounds pretty funny if it turns out that the very same man who Obama has stated that wasn't fit to wear the black robe is "looking over his birth certificate" and deciding if he is in fact legal to be POTUS. That would make many of us very happy that at least it took a black man to make right what was wrong. Can't depend on the media, but, hopefully on the Supreme Court.

you guys are so stupid going on with something like this you guys aint nothing but stupid geeks

Being George Bush's nephew in law helped Clarence,
Obama being Cheney's 2nd Cousin in law, not so much help. And the news specials about how crappy Judge Thomas was to his family never painted a trustful photo of him. Anyone with inner self hatred is hard to trust.