Yes, Brown is correct. The SCOTUS 6 have shown themselves to be 'christian' nationalists ... or 1 step this side. At least 4 were elected based on their membership in a Roman Catholic weirdo cult. Roman Catholics may regard thenselves as the One, True, Religion, but members of the 2 cults are much further from the True teachings of the young Jewish man-god they purport to worship.
Do you truly believe a broad, vicious, untethered attack advances thoughtful analysis and discussion? You want to think more before you put pen in hand.
I put plenty of thought in before putting pen in hand. You may forget that we have had more than 30 years to think about Thomas' personality and performance on the Court.
Thomas was a disaster at EEOC, and has been a rolling disaster since. Biden made a big mistake in his youth.
I believe Anita Hill and others.
As for the others, look up Leonard Leo and what he has accomplished to destroy America. Scalia was also Opus Dei and his son was leader of. People of Praise is the other virus on the Court.
Thank you, too. You are correct Biden was not alone, and did vote 'Nay'. 95% of the fault lays at the feet of the GOP (who were actually Republicons at the time having mopfhed twice already from being Republicans pre-Reagan [possibly the result of a KGB effort?]). Most of the remainder falls at the feet of the 11 Democrats who, doubting the credibility of a Law professor, voted Aye.
However, Joe "was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, blamed for doing little to stop the attacks on Hill and opting not to call three other witnesses who would have echoed HillтАЩs charges of sexual harassment. Biden almost apologetically gave Thomas the benefit of the doubt, critics say, and that stance helped put Thomas on the Supreme Court."
Had he not felt so embarrassed about the allegations and had waited on the other allegations, I feel quite sure at least 3 of the 11 Democrats and several more Republicons would have had to concur with "Nay". It was 1991 afterall. And I wish we did not have to dredge this up one more time.
Yes! Today, 30 June 2023, marks one full year since Justice Jackson was sworn in. She's a true American treasure! As someone else mentioned, she could/should/will be a superb Chief Justice some day. If that happens, she can help reinstate trust, respect and credibility of SCOTUS in that role. Her presence as the most junior Justice brings serious integrity to the institution. Thankfully. Grateful for her! Thank you, President Biden.
I'm sick and tired of Christians being mollycoddled all day every day. The Catholic church is the biggest tax dodge ever invented, followed closely by the Mormons and Scientologists and Baptists. What you call broad and vicious and untethered (got your thesaurus out I see) is in reality true and just. Someday if there is a god we'll be rid of organized religion.
This opened my eyes, and it was shocking to see how much money various groups manage! And will you look at the #1 entry - Ensign Peak Advisors, which manages the assets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I find it jaw-dropping. You can see others on the list associated with religion.
Absolutely correct, Carolyn. In the short time she has been on the Court, she has distinguished herself as an outstanding Justice in every sense of the word.
Thomas, Gorsuch and Roberts had choices. Cases that were brought before them that helped their "friends". But they did not recuse. As Joyce Vance indicated, Brown showed them how it's done. She schooled her corrupt fellow justices.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a role model. And isn't it refreshing to see her hit back at pompous political puppetry? I see her as Chief Justice someday.
She is magnificent indeed, Bill. In the short time she has been on the bench, she has shown what an all around class act she is, as well as being a Justice in every sense of the word.
On the other hand, Justice Thomas continues to comport himself with all the dignity of a Stepin Fetchit revival.
The full catalogue of his horrendous abuses of his position are too Tolstoyan in length to list here.
With respect to the Harvard/UNC decision alone, I would point out two for this post's purpose: HIs cringy statement that the Constitution is "colorblind" is preposterous. The drafters of the Constitution directly deliberated upon slavery and enacted the founding document fully aware that the "peculiar institution" of slavery was fully operative at the time, even while inserting a provision for the sunsetting of slave importation. The post Civil War or Reconstruction Amendments (13-15) directly addressed the status of the former slaves and amended that status to reflect full freedom and endowment with all applicable constitutional rights. In fact, these amendments were "fully sighted" with respect to color, in the exact converse of "colorblind".
Also, I have never heard of a Justice other than the Justice announcing the opinion of the Court (usually the Chief, or the Chief handing off the announcement to the Justice who authored the opinion) reading his/her concurring opinion aloud. Thomas did so in this case, seemingly to spite the first female African American Justice. He was well aware that she, as the newest Justice and thus not the senior Justice on the dissenting side, would not be reading hers.
Ha! I am familiar with that film, although have not seen it. I'm not the biggest Quentin Tarantino fan. He has cinematic chops for sure, but so many of his films, especially his more recent ones are juvenile blood spatterers with no real soul to them.
I do like the Kill Bill films, most of Pulp Fiction, and of course his best one, "Jackie Brown"
Well.... the point isn't the film itself. The point is the character Jackson plays. He's what the slavers used to call a "house Negro" who was completely loyal to ol' massa and kept the other slaves in line (https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/mxp/speeches/mxa29.html). In exchange, he got to live in relative comfort.
Some people will sell out their own families if the price is right. Thomas is obviously that sort of person.
KB did not have a "choice", thank you mzlizzi, SCOTUS had 2 cases to consider, one from a STATE university, UNC & one from a PRIVATE university, Harvard. KB's admistrative role at Harvard compels recusal which makes her legal decision on the UNC facts even more powerful now & in cases ahead.
It sounds like ThomasтАЩs experience after HIS graduation from тАЬeliteтАЭ schools was fine for him but not for anyone else. Further, His experience of having not received offers from тАЬeliteтАЭ law firms after graduation, as others may have, really seared him. A documentary about him noted this, and he ended up having to go to work in government. Thomas strikes me as self-loathing and desperately wanting to be what his white, very rich benefactors want him to be. He has always seemed to be just this side of explosive anger.
He looks to me like a smug arse getting revenge for every slight, but mouthing IтАЩve got mine, now screw you. Of course, he and Ginni do nothing but bow and scrape to money to maintain their position on the mountain top.
Thomas chose to wear overalls while at Yale to make a statement about his past--at Yale, a socially conservative school. He graduated in the middle of his class. I personally believe that choice to portray himself as rebellious, plus his mediocre class standing, had more to do with his lack of making connections, both with students and with future employers, than his race. IOW, he himself played the race card, but not very well and without forethought of the consequences.
Yes, and now he wants us to believe he is where he is because of merit which he totally lacks. From day one that guy has appeared as the dud he is....nothing to do with his race either. Sometimes people who do not get what they think they deserve despite being mediocre spend a lifetime trying to get revenge or to somehow erase that. He is hey, look at me in my black robes and I can help make your life miserable while I hobnob with the wealthy and get lots of perks from that. Then i have a white wife, never mind that she is an insurrectionist. That pair gives me a vomit reflex.
It has occurred to me that he was appointed in order to provide a black person on the court. He seems to me to represent the Stockholm syndromeтАФidentifying with his oppressors to prove his worthтАж
No but, I think MLMinET is on the right track with the "seared" observation. Apparently, Thomas' many post Yale law firm rejections led him to over dramatically deface his Yale diploma. From there, Thomas worked at the EEOC, oh ... sorry, I meant wrecked the EEOC. Fast forward to yesterday where Justice Kentanji Bown stated in her dissent that Thomas was railing against a dissent that she did not write. I would say scalded not seared.. Scalded for life.
Former labor secretary Robert Reich , a classmate, says he always said hello to Thomas as he entered class and was always ignored. Thomas had a Dickensian childhood, and he does not seem to have recovered.
He really wanted to be seen as a "mudsill". I knew what mudsills were in construction but had no idea of the use of the term for slaves and poor white farmers before the civil war. Thank you Dr. Richardson for that piece of history. I even had to go to wickapedia to see the historical connection to construction.
I am appalled at this decision, and many other actions taken by Justice Thomas. At the same time, the Front Line documentary on Clarence and Ginny Thomas gave a very thorough portrait of Justice Thomas's life from childhood on. He did not have one consistent adult who treated him with love and acceptance. In fact he was beaten regularly by his grandfather who raised him after his father abandoned him, and then threw him out at age 16 to fend for himself. There were many other disturbing experiences noted in the film.
As to affirmative action, not only did it not guarantee his being hired by a prestigious law firm but also, it all but assured that he was routinely tormented by fellow classmates (e.g. keeping him awake all night in the dorm by calling "Ni**er" over and over.)
I am not offering these facts as excuses. But they are only a very few of the painful tormenting incidents that were recounted in the documentary. As I take in this information, I'm wondering how these factors contributed to his growing up to be as flawed and seeking of power as he did.... not to excuse his behaviors but to better understand the causes, which are much more complex than that "he's a terrible human being."
Thank you, Thread. I bet you meet many children who raise those questions for you. I was a teacher many decades ago, and I have such respect for anyone fulfilling that mission today. I know there's not one right way to raise our children. But I think there are some foundational principles that some folks simply don't know - or aren't able to recognize as essential, as you stated "receiving the love and support they need to thrive and to become reasonable and caring adults." Did you ever read that the former president was two years old when his mother went into hospital for nearly a year? Again, not to excuse, but to wonder about the impact from that absence and all that we know about his father. Blessings,
The pretense that there was an equivalence between Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall was a fiction based entirely on skin color, as seen through the lens of racists like Lee Atwater and his cronies. It was disgusting when he was nominated, and it has only become more so in the years and scandals since.
I could make the same comment about Amy Coney Barrett replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Republicans love symbols without substance, and unfortunately there's plenty of ambitious Justice fodder ready to toe the Federalist Society line in return for a chance for a lifetime position of power and influence.
C.Thomas Lied during his Senate hearing and should be impeached and removed from the bench he is an embarrassment as a jurist. He is a guarantee right wing vote with total disregard for the law and precedence .
I'm thinking there was some affirmative "action" in that appointment - the fact he was appointed after the hearing on his sexual abuse of women? Boy does that remind me of Kavanaugh AND dumpty! All 3 of them! I wonder - is that what is necessary to appeal to the Repubs now? Is that the drawing card?
What a stupid analysis. That's a highly RACIST cheap shot and condescending.
Thomas has to on the racial plantation to be black? Maybe you are self loathing and angry?
Lets cut through the bullshit and be honest. This is the MIDDLE FINGER to
Asians. They are the group harmed by elite college quota systems.
They came to this country and benefited from the laziness of Americans. They worked harder and sacrificed to get into elite colleges and careers. God Bless them they raised the bar.
Instead o[f praising and emulating their effort, we get the usually claptrap about racism. Its like the drunk uncle who can't stop about Vietnam. Wilfreed Sheed called it "a one note living room"
If you read the majority opinion their analysis is simple. You can't discriminate based on race. Previous courts made some special exemptions based on "public good". Those exemptions HAD VERY CLEAR restrictions.
1) There had to be time limits - As Ailto wrote "there seems to be no end in sight"
2) There is "strict scrutiny" College can't make up their own rules.
You're the first one to make this thread about perceived anti-Asian bias. Telling, that.
P.S. Had you bothered to read the article, you would know that Harvard's admissions policies were not "clearly based on race." Or maybe you knew that and are just being dishonest.
We heard a Heritage Foundation (Black) person make the anti-Asian bias argument yesterday in a panel discussion. First time we ever heard it. While he was smart and articulate and made some interesting points, he mentioned that Thomas was his 'favorite' SC Justice... so there was that.
A dissent can be "powerful" not in the sense it carries any binding legal power at the present, but in that it can be powerfully written, powerfully argued, powerfully persuasive, etc. The legal scholarship in dissents can also be used, and has been used, at a later date to guide other legal opinions that may become consequential. Justice Brown Jackson's is one such opinion, as evidenced by the many outlets which quoted portions at length today in their coverage, unusual for a dissent.
No offense, mzlizzi, but a quick check at your lengthy subscription list to what seems like every loony conspiracy theorist on this platform, Covid-related and otherwise, leads me to wonder if you will enjoy your time here. Obviously all are welcome, but Professor Richardson proffers scholarship, not paranoia, and the former is preferred to the latter amongst the commentariat as well. Heads up!
Well, she could have overlooked the ethical considerations, as Thomas, Alito and Roberts have, and cast her vote. But, she is ethical and therefore recused herself.
To answer your questions about dissents, Justice Jackson is establishing her position via how she writes and how she acts. When (as I devoutly hope) the majority on the Court shifts, she will write with the majority, and her writings will carry more weight because of the action she is taking now.
Google "I Dissent" for some background information on the power of dissent.
Ally, we should understand that Justice Brown Jackson realized that she may not be on the 'winning team' in her decisions on this Court but that a pertinent and well-presented opposing opinion can be very useful in future similar cases brought before the Court. She is evaluating her writings with an eye toward both history and future cases.
And, gosh darn it, it just needed saying!!! Eagerly hope to see, in the very near future, multiple lawsuits challenging legacy and sports preferential considerations in college admissions .
Note that Ketanji Brown graciously recuses herself in a case for which she could be too closely involved, unlike others on the Court.....
Yep, but she only explicitly notes the build-in biases across the court which might otherwise recuse them all. Social conscience indeed!
Yes, Brown is correct. The SCOTUS 6 have shown themselves to be 'christian' nationalists ... or 1 step this side. At least 4 were elected based on their membership in a Roman Catholic weirdo cult. Roman Catholics may regard thenselves as the One, True, Religion, but members of the 2 cults are much further from the True teachings of the young Jewish man-god they purport to worship.
Do you truly believe a broad, vicious, untethered attack advances thoughtful analysis and discussion? You want to think more before you put pen in hand.
I put plenty of thought in before putting pen in hand. You may forget that we have had more than 30 years to think about Thomas' personality and performance on the Court.
Thomas was a disaster at EEOC, and has been a rolling disaster since. Biden made a big mistake in his youth.
I believe Anita Hill and others.
As for the others, look up Leonard Leo and what he has accomplished to destroy America. Scalia was also Opus Dei and his son was leader of. People of Praise is the other virus on the Court.
A cabal is a cabal.
I have always thought it amazing that Thomas and others have forgotten that intermarriage used to be against the law.
I wholeheartedly agree, except you cannot lay Thomas as a gross, plain mistake even then on Biden's doorstep alone. Thank you.
Thank you, too. You are correct Biden was not alone, and did vote 'Nay'. 95% of the fault lays at the feet of the GOP (who were actually Republicons at the time having mopfhed twice already from being Republicans pre-Reagan [possibly the result of a KGB effort?]). Most of the remainder falls at the feet of the 11 Democrats who, doubting the credibility of a Law professor, voted Aye.
However, Joe "was the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, blamed for doing little to stop the attacks on Hill and opting not to call three other witnesses who would have echoed HillтАЩs charges of sexual harassment. Biden almost apologetically gave Thomas the benefit of the doubt, critics say, and that stance helped put Thomas on the Supreme Court."
Had he not felt so embarrassed about the allegations and had waited on the other allegations, I feel quite sure at least 3 of the 11 Democrats and several more Republicons would have had to concur with "Nay". It was 1991 afterall. And I wish we did not have to dredge this up one more time.
Chris Hayes of All In on MSNBC did a thorough discussion on Thomas's hatred of Affirmative Action. Here's Chris's take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbiPRfbAEMw
Uh, I thought Westtrekker made a pretty good point.
Yes! Today, 30 June 2023, marks one full year since Justice Jackson was sworn in. She's a true American treasure! As someone else mentioned, she could/should/will be a superb Chief Justice some day. If that happens, she can help reinstate trust, respect and credibility of SCOTUS in that role. Her presence as the most junior Justice brings serious integrity to the institution. Thankfully. Grateful for her! Thank you, President Biden.
I'm sick and tired of Christians being mollycoddled all day every day. The Catholic church is the biggest tax dodge ever invented, followed closely by the Mormons and Scientologists and Baptists. What you call broad and vicious and untethered (got your thesaurus out I see) is in reality true and just. Someday if there is a god we'll be rid of organized religion.
This opened my eyes, and it was shocking to see how much money various groups manage! And will you look at the #1 entry - Ensign Peak Advisors, which manages the assets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I find it jaw-dropping. You can see others on the list associated with religion.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-top-endowment-funds/
Yeah the Mormons are the largest owner of real estate in like 7 western states...
I don't think there's any question about this court imposing its religion on our nation.
I so agree, William. No question at all.
Vicious?
Absolutely correct, Carolyn. In the short time she has been on the Court, she has distinguished herself as an outstanding Justice in every sense of the word.
When the Conservatives on the court act like their counterparts in the legislature, this is what happens.
I know! What a concept! (Shakes head).
That was my big take away too.
Thomas, Gorsuch and Roberts had choices. Cases that were brought before them that helped their "friends". But they did not recuse. As Joyce Vance indicated, Brown showed them how it's done. She schooled her corrupt fellow justices.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a role model. And isn't it refreshing to see her hit back at pompous political puppetry? I see her as Chief Justice someday.
She is magnificent indeed, Bill. In the short time she has been on the bench, she has shown what an all around class act she is, as well as being a Justice in every sense of the word.
On the other hand, Justice Thomas continues to comport himself with all the dignity of a Stepin Fetchit revival.
The full catalogue of his horrendous abuses of his position are too Tolstoyan in length to list here.
With respect to the Harvard/UNC decision alone, I would point out two for this post's purpose: HIs cringy statement that the Constitution is "colorblind" is preposterous. The drafters of the Constitution directly deliberated upon slavery and enacted the founding document fully aware that the "peculiar institution" of slavery was fully operative at the time, even while inserting a provision for the sunsetting of slave importation. The post Civil War or Reconstruction Amendments (13-15) directly addressed the status of the former slaves and amended that status to reflect full freedom and endowment with all applicable constitutional rights. In fact, these amendments were "fully sighted" with respect to color, in the exact converse of "colorblind".
Also, I have never heard of a Justice other than the Justice announcing the opinion of the Court (usually the Chief, or the Chief handing off the announcement to the Justice who authored the opinion) reading his/her concurring opinion aloud. Thomas did so in this case, seemingly to spite the first female African American Justice. He was well aware that she, as the newest Justice and thus not the senior Justice on the dissenting side, would not be reading hers.
He is reprehensible.
Thomas is the Samuel L. Jackson character in "Django Unchained."
Ha! I am familiar with that film, although have not seen it. I'm not the biggest Quentin Tarantino fan. He has cinematic chops for sure, but so many of his films, especially his more recent ones are juvenile blood spatterers with no real soul to them.
I do like the Kill Bill films, most of Pulp Fiction, and of course his best one, "Jackie Brown"
Well.... the point isn't the film itself. The point is the character Jackson plays. He's what the slavers used to call a "house Negro" who was completely loyal to ol' massa and kept the other slaves in line (https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/mxp/speeches/mxa29.html). In exchange, he got to live in relative comfort.
Some people will sell out their own families if the price is right. Thomas is obviously that sort of person.
Daniel, my man! When I was teaching in film school, I refused to teach QT. Total asshole, and so irresponsible to his actors.
Thank you! My only regret is that I can like this only once. You wrote much of my thoughts and I sincerely give this entire comment a hearty AMEN!
Very sweet of you. Much appreciated.
Chris Hayes of All In on MSNBC did a thorough discussion on Thomas's hatred of Affirmative Action. Here's Chris's take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbiPRfbAEMw
KB did not have a "choice", thank you mzlizzi, SCOTUS had 2 cases to consider, one from a STATE university, UNC & one from a PRIVATE university, Harvard. KB's admistrative role at Harvard compels recusal which makes her legal decision on the UNC facts even more powerful now & in cases ahead.
It sounds like ThomasтАЩs experience after HIS graduation from тАЬeliteтАЭ schools was fine for him but not for anyone else. Further, His experience of having not received offers from тАЬeliteтАЭ law firms after graduation, as others may have, really seared him. A documentary about him noted this, and he ended up having to go to work in government. Thomas strikes me as self-loathing and desperately wanting to be what his white, very rich benefactors want him to be. He has always seemed to be just this side of explosive anger.
He looks to me like a smug arse getting revenge for every slight, but mouthing IтАЩve got mine, now screw you. Of course, he and Ginni do nothing but bow and scrape to money to maintain their position on the mountain top.
Thomas chose to wear overalls while at Yale to make a statement about his past--at Yale, a socially conservative school. He graduated in the middle of his class. I personally believe that choice to portray himself as rebellious, plus his mediocre class standing, had more to do with his lack of making connections, both with students and with future employers, than his race. IOW, he himself played the race card, but not very well and without forethought of the consequences.
Yes, and now he wants us to believe he is where he is because of merit which he totally lacks. From day one that guy has appeared as the dud he is....nothing to do with his race either. Sometimes people who do not get what they think they deserve despite being mediocre spend a lifetime trying to get revenge or to somehow erase that. He is hey, look at me in my black robes and I can help make your life miserable while I hobnob with the wealthy and get lots of perks from that. Then i have a white wife, never mind that she is an insurrectionist. That pair gives me a vomit reflex.
It has occurred to me that he was appointed in order to provide a black person on the court. He seems to me to represent the Stockholm syndromeтАФidentifying with his oppressors to prove his worthтАж
Ginni is more than a little nuts. If I remember right she grew up in some sort of cultтАжlike Coney Barrett, similarly execrable.
Lots of black men pick white wiseman, I have no idea what thatтАЩs about but mostly I donтАЩt care.
But he learned to bow to money, now everyone pays. Wonder what Ginni saw in him back then, maybe a ruthlessness they shareтАж
Anybody got a Personality Disorder diagnosis for either,
No but, I think MLMinET is on the right track with the "seared" observation. Apparently, Thomas' many post Yale law firm rejections led him to over dramatically deface his Yale diploma. From there, Thomas worked at the EEOC, oh ... sorry, I meant wrecked the EEOC. Fast forward to yesterday where Justice Kentanji Bown stated in her dissent that Thomas was railing against a dissent that she did not write. I would say scalded not seared.. Scalded for life.
Narcissists loath themselves, and love no one.
Former labor secretary Robert Reich , a classmate, says he always said hello to Thomas as he entered class and was always ignored. Thomas had a Dickensian childhood, and he does not seem to have recovered.
Interesting. I believe this substory confirms that he HATES what he is - or has become.
If there is truth to re-incarnation, his prior life must have been in the KKK.
But he sure knew who to blame for it. Ginni helped
He really wanted to be seen as a "mudsill". I knew what mudsills were in construction but had no idea of the use of the term for slaves and poor white farmers before the civil war. Thank you Dr. Richardson for that piece of history. I even had to go to wickapedia to see the historical connection to construction.
That is an interesting term that I learned here also. We had some construction projects when I was in education and I learned the term "floor dog".
From his attack on KBJ's response, my analysis is that he hates what he is. Too much vinegar for any other explanation.
I am appalled at this decision, and many other actions taken by Justice Thomas. At the same time, the Front Line documentary on Clarence and Ginny Thomas gave a very thorough portrait of Justice Thomas's life from childhood on. He did not have one consistent adult who treated him with love and acceptance. In fact he was beaten regularly by his grandfather who raised him after his father abandoned him, and then threw him out at age 16 to fend for himself. There were many other disturbing experiences noted in the film.
As to affirmative action, not only did it not guarantee his being hired by a prestigious law firm but also, it all but assured that he was routinely tormented by fellow classmates (e.g. keeping him awake all night in the dorm by calling "Ni**er" over and over.)
I am not offering these facts as excuses. But they are only a very few of the painful tormenting incidents that were recounted in the documentary. As I take in this information, I'm wondering how these factors contributed to his growing up to be as flawed and seeking of power as he did.... not to excuse his behaviors but to better understand the causes, which are much more complex than that "he's a terrible human being."
https://youtu.be/wJuRx1wARUk Link to Documentary
Thank you, Thread. I bet you meet many children who raise those questions for you. I was a teacher many decades ago, and I have such respect for anyone fulfilling that mission today. I know there's not one right way to raise our children. But I think there are some foundational principles that some folks simply don't know - or aren't able to recognize as essential, as you stated "receiving the love and support they need to thrive and to become reasonable and caring adults." Did you ever read that the former president was two years old when his mother went into hospital for nearly a year? Again, not to excuse, but to wonder about the impact from that absence and all that we know about his father. Blessings,
He is spiteful, angry and resentful. As as Buch Sr. who appointed him, said he was the most qualified jurist in the country.
The pretense that there was an equivalence between Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall was a fiction based entirely on skin color, as seen through the lens of racists like Lee Atwater and his cronies. It was disgusting when he was nominated, and it has only become more so in the years and scandals since.
It was disgusting also after the Anita Hill challenge.
I could make the same comment about Amy Coney Barrett replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Republicans love symbols without substance, and unfortunately there's plenty of ambitious Justice fodder ready to toe the Federalist Society line in return for a chance for a lifetime position of power and influence.
C.Thomas Lied during his Senate hearing and should be impeached and removed from the bench he is an embarrassment as a jurist. He is a guarantee right wing vote with total disregard for the law and precedence .
Daddy Bush had already drunk the Kool Aid, Lee Atwater helped him overcome any scruples
I'm thinking there was some affirmative "action" in that appointment - the fact he was appointed after the hearing on his sexual abuse of women? Boy does that remind me of Kavanaugh AND dumpty! All 3 of them! I wonder - is that what is necessary to appeal to the Repubs now? Is that the drawing card?
He puts me in mind a bit of Samuel L. Jackson's character Stephen in "Django Unchained".
What a stupid analysis. That's a highly RACIST cheap shot and condescending.
Thomas has to on the racial plantation to be black? Maybe you are self loathing and angry?
Lets cut through the bullshit and be honest. This is the MIDDLE FINGER to
Asians. They are the group harmed by elite college quota systems.
They came to this country and benefited from the laziness of Americans. They worked harder and sacrificed to get into elite colleges and careers. God Bless them they raised the bar.
Instead o[f praising and emulating their effort, we get the usually claptrap about racism. Its like the drunk uncle who can't stop about Vietnam. Wilfreed Sheed called it "a one note living room"
If you read the majority opinion their analysis is simple. You can't discriminate based on race. Previous courts made some special exemptions based on "public good". Those exemptions HAD VERY CLEAR restrictions.
1) There had to be time limits - As Ailto wrote "there seems to be no end in sight"
2) There is "strict scrutiny" College can't make up their own rules.
3) Admissions can't be clearly based on race.
You're the first one to make this thread about perceived anti-Asian bias. Telling, that.
P.S. Had you bothered to read the article, you would know that Harvard's admissions policies were not "clearly based on race." Or maybe you knew that and are just being dishonest.
We heard a Heritage Foundation (Black) person make the anti-Asian bias argument yesterday in a panel discussion. First time we ever heard it. While he was smart and articulate and made some interesting points, he mentioned that Thomas was his 'favorite' SC Justice... so there was that.
She has as much of a choice as Gorsuch, Thomas, and others on the SCOTUS. She just made the principled decision. Unlike them.
Ethics, not law, compels her recusal. If she decided bot to recuse who would make her? The police?
Yes, I agree that tRump's absent mother at that crucial age, with no loving substitute, had a horrid affectvon him, and now sadly, our entire country.
A dissent can be "powerful" not in the sense it carries any binding legal power at the present, but in that it can be powerfully written, powerfully argued, powerfully persuasive, etc. The legal scholarship in dissents can also be used, and has been used, at a later date to guide other legal opinions that may become consequential. Justice Brown Jackson's is one such opinion, as evidenced by the many outlets which quoted portions at length today in their coverage, unusual for a dissent.
No offense, mzlizzi, but a quick check at your lengthy subscription list to what seems like every loony conspiracy theorist on this platform, Covid-related and otherwise, leads me to wonder if you will enjoy your time here. Obviously all are welcome, but Professor Richardson proffers scholarship, not paranoia, and the former is preferred to the latter amongst the commentariat as well. Heads up!
Yes. Beautifully put.
Well, she could have overlooked the ethical considerations, as Thomas, Alito and Roberts have, and cast her vote. But, she is ethical and therefore recused herself.
To answer your questions about dissents, Justice Jackson is establishing her position via how she writes and how she acts. When (as I devoutly hope) the majority on the Court shifts, she will write with the majority, and her writings will carry more weight because of the action she is taking now.
Google "I Dissent" for some background information on the power of dissent.
Ally, we should understand that Justice Brown Jackson realized that she may not be on the 'winning team' in her decisions on this Court but that a pertinent and well-presented opposing opinion can be very useful in future similar cases brought before the Court. She is evaluating her writings with an eye toward both history and future cases.
And, gosh darn it, it just needed saying!!! Eagerly hope to see, in the very near future, multiple lawsuits challenging legacy and sports preferential considerations in college admissions .
You said it better than I did. Thank you!
There is a history of SCOTUS' dissents later becoming the Law of the Land by power of legal reasoning and/or Congressional statutory action.
Indeed, she documented the rationale that will ultimately be used to challenge the decision later, or lead to new legislation.
We and they all have choices. Always. She chose the honorable path. Plus her vote wouldn't change a thing this time.
I was being ironic - :-)