- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 22, 2008 at 2:05 am #587840
AnonymousInactiveJust curious about everyone’s thoughts regarding the remarks Obama made about Clarence Thomas……
August 22, 2008 at 3:21 am #634986
beachdrivegirlParticipantI didnt get to hear the clip or watch. (no youtube over here) from what i read though i think that he was possible misinterpreted and his words are being manipulated a bit by (gasp) the media.
August 22, 2008 at 3:57 am #634987
AnonymousInactiveBDG – You could be right. I wish I could find more (unbiased) coverage or material.
August 22, 2008 at 7:24 am #634988
JeannieParticipantObama is right.
What’s the fuss about? Thomas is a mediocre judge at best. His race has nothing to do with it. The media’s PC police seem to be out in full force.
August 22, 2008 at 4:06 pm #634989
KenParticipantWho has a link to the quote and the context? There is unlikely to be anything Obama can say which would be both accurate and family friendly, but I am interested in how close he can get.
Clarence “coke can” Thomas is in the running for the most useless sycophant ever to be appointed to the supremes (well since the 1830’s) but I suspect Obama did not go quite that far.
August 22, 2008 at 4:12 pm #634990
beachdrivegirlParticipant“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don’t think that he, I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.â€
This is the only quote I have found. The media (well Fox News and other Republican sites) are trying to say he was calling him dumb or interpreted that he said he was dumb. I dont think it is calling him dumb i think it is questioning his positions…i could not find the tnire interview.
August 22, 2008 at 4:29 pm #634991
ZenguyParticipantFrom the Huffington Post.
“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas,” said the presumptive Democratic nominee. “I don’t think that he…” the crowd interrupted with applause. “I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution. I would not have nominated Justice Scalia though I don’t think there is any doubt about his intellectual brilliance. Because he and I just disagree.
August 22, 2008 at 5:17 pm #634992
mellaw6565MemberThe way I read that quote, Obama was indicating that Thomas doesn’t have a strong enough background or demonstrated legal scholarship to gain the highest legal position in the land.
I actually have some close “gossip” knowledge of the whole Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas debacle since Hill was one of my adjunct law professors at A.U. and Thomas was one of my Moot Court judges and they were well known to the A.U. student/professor community. My academic advisor testified on behalf of Hill at Thomas’ hearing – his “hints” and scuttlebutt at the time suggested that they were having an affair after meeting at an A.U. event.
In any event, neither of them were ever considered to be outstanding legal scholars or jurists and I know there was a lot of shock when Thomas was nominated.
Thomas and Scalia, like most Sup. Ct. Justices, are political appts. by the leader that they have the most in common with philosophically (some exceptions – Sandra Day O’Connor, etc…) and it is clear from Obama’s campaign slogan that he believes in a changing world and changing government, which is strictly antithetical to the strict constructionist views of both Thomas and Scalia. So it’s no suprise that Obama would not have nominated either.
August 22, 2008 at 5:22 pm #634993
charlabobParticipantIf you think O’Conner is an exception, read her autobiography — she admits to voting with the majority to “elect” bush, because she wanted a repug president. Doesn’t sound like an exceptional appointment to me. :-(
August 22, 2008 at 5:24 pm #634994
mellaw6565MemberBut if you look at her decisions, she bucked the majority on several occasions, much to Reagan’s chagrin.
August 22, 2008 at 5:33 pm #634995
charlabobParticipantI agree, M6 — however, GWB is a bit difficult for me to forgive :-)
I think Souter was the biggest surprised to Bush Senior — he’s every bit as unpredictable (read, reasonable) as you’d expect of a Yankee who lived with his mother in the wilds of New Hampshire and didn’t even own a television.
August 22, 2008 at 7:39 pm #634996
mellaw6565Memberyeah – he’s definitely the Thoreau type
August 23, 2008 at 3:48 pm #634997
JoBParticipantI think.. i hope. there are a lot of republicans who are personally appalled at the political incompetence of Bush Jr.
As Jon Stewart put it.. who ever thought we would be longing nostalgically for the personal integrity of Bush Sr?
August 23, 2008 at 8:43 pm #634998
mellaw6565MemberWe’re going to see a couple of more Sup. Ct. appts. during the next Presidency, especially if Obama gets in. A couple of the more liberal senior Justices have stated that they were going to wait out retirement until Bush Jr. was out of office and a less conservative Pres. came in. Hope they get their wish now with Obama.
August 23, 2008 at 11:57 pm #634999
JoBParticipanti too hope they get their wish… and would love to see someone choose nominees who actually has respect for the law.
politically appointed supreme court justices just defeat the purpose of a supreme court.
August 24, 2008 at 3:19 am #635000
mellaw6565MemberThe problem with publicly electing judges, IMO and based on my former legal experience, is that the public has no way of becoming familiar with their legal scholarship unless their decisions get appealed. If their decisions are not overturned or remanded on a regular basis, then one can presume that they have a fairly steady grasp of the law and the Constitution.
However, I also know that many people don’t appeal decisions that may be not quite in sync with the law, but costs and other considerations make them walk away. So, appeal records are not always the best measure.
Again, it comes back to the classic argument of strict constructionist vs. someone who interprets the law broadly and views the Constitution as a living, changing document.
August 24, 2008 at 4:56 pm #635001
JoBParticipantmellaw6565..
as you may have guessed.. i am all for giving things room to grow… even our body of law.
while some would seem to be in tune with extensive pruning to suit their ideological agenda…
the trouble with pruning is that if done too severely, it kills the plant.
August 24, 2008 at 5:42 pm #635002
mellaw6565MemberTrue JoB – I am also one of the living Constitution theorists. It was clear to me during my Const’l research in law school that the founders meant to create a document that would grow and change as our country grew, yet provide a basic framework for us to follow.
Guys like Bork and Scalia, who want to view the law only as a black & white written document without room for interpretation, miss the whole point. I think social “regulation” in the courts was contemplated by the founders, who felt that learned men would make the best decisions under fairness & equality for everyone when interpreting the Constitution. If not, we would still have segregation, discrimination, etc… that Congress may never have addressed unless pushed to do so by the Courts.
August 24, 2008 at 7:02 pm #635003
JoBParticipantmellaw6565..
LOL… i can hear some saying.. well, yeah! when you point out what a living constitution has given us… and what they would not “have to contend with” if it didn’t.
short term thinking:(
August 24, 2008 at 10:43 pm #635004
mellaw6565MemberTrue, but the flip side is slavery, no votes for women, no abortion rights, no civil rights for african americans, limits on free speech and the press, etc…… I’m glad for what a living constitution as given us – a chance to breathe and become the greatest country in the world (IMO).
I like long term thinking better:)
August 25, 2008 at 1:04 am #635005
JoBParticipantyou forgot labor rights which affect everyone who has a job.
August 25, 2008 at 1:24 am #635006
mellaw6565MemberYes I did – thanks for the reminder:)
August 25, 2008 at 5:52 pm #635007
WSratsinacageMemberWhat do people think about all the things said about Clarence Thomas when he was being confirmed? A democratic smear campaign or was Anita Hill right?
August 25, 2008 at 6:44 pm #635008
JoBParticipantI think Anita Hill was right… there were people from the University that testified that he made unseemly comments about their relationship.
besides.. it hasn’t done her career any good, has it.. so what was the motive for such a personal disclosure?
August 25, 2008 at 6:48 pm #635009
WSratsinacageMemberNot just directed at JoB but I think Anita Hill was right too so what’s the problem with Obama Dissing Thomas?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.