Who are The Real Racists?

[William Joyce]

Why is this so interesting to you? Do you feel you missed your calling in life?

You are white but yet feel that someone thinking you are black is the HIGHEST form of flattery?

GotZoom, I had your reaction. Though I'm not surprised that "jasendorf" is white. The most eager white-bashing, unconditional black worshippers are...

white.

It's funny. "jasendorf" is basically doing what slavemasters did to blacks: OBJECTIFY THEM. He or she has simply decided to make a fetish of blacks, regardless of who they really are, as a bow to political fashion. I doubt "jasendorf" lives in a black neighborhood or has a welter of black friends. He or she, like the rest of us, is an educated white person sitting behind a computer who's gotten a liberal notion or two, that's all. If "jasendorf" were sitting in traffic in East New York and a black thug came up to his/her car and starting banging on the window and yelling "open up!", "jasendorf" would wet his/her pants. Somehow, I doubt this has ever happened to "jasendorf." He/she has probably led a very sheltered life in the suburbs.

 

[red states rule]

jasendorf strikes me as the kind of person who speaks of diversity, yet would be the first one to put a "For Sale" sign in his yard when a black family moved in the neighborhood

 

[jillian]

Here are some of his opinions. If you bother to take the time to read some, you will see what a brilliant Justice Thomas really is.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/judges/toj_thomas.html
justice: thomas
Hudson v. McMillian 503 U.S. 1 (1992) THOMAS, J., Dissenting Opinion

Dawson v. Delaware 503 U.S. 159 (1992) THOMAS, J., Dissenting Opinion

Georgia v. McCollum 505 U.S. 42 (1992) THOMAS, J., Concurring Opinion

United States v. Fordice 505 U.S. 717 (1992) THOMAS, J., Concurring Opinion

Helling v. McKinney 509 U.S. 25 (1993) THOMAS, J., Dissenting Opinion

United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995) THOMAS, J., Concurring Opinion

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena 515 U.S. 200 (1995) THOMAS, J., Concurring Opinion

Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia 515 U.S. 819 (1995) THOMAS, J., Concurring Opinion

Printz v. United States 521 U.S. 898 (1997) THOMAS, J., Concurring Opinion

United States v. Bajakajian 524 U.S. 321 (1998) THOMAS, J., Opinion of the Court

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth 524 U.S. 742 (1998) THOMAS, J., Dissenting

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton 524 U.S. 775 (1998) THOMAS, J., Dissenting Opinion

Saenz v. Roe 526 U.S. 489 (1999) THOMAS, J., Dissenting

Chicago v. Morales 527 U.S. 41 (1999) THOMAS, J., Dissenting

United States v. Morrison 529 U.S. 598 (2000) THOMAS, J., Concurring Opinion

Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 57 (2000) THOMAS, J., Concurring Opinion

Mitchell v. Helms 530 U.S. 793 (2000) THOMAS, J., Opinion of the Court

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 00-795 (2002) THOMAS, J., Concurring Opinion

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris 00-1751 (2002) THOMAS, J., Concurring Opinion

Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 v. Earls 01-332 (2002) THOMAS, J., Opinion of the Court

******** 99-1030 (2000) THOMAS, J., Dissenting Opinion

Actually, they were concurring and dissenting opinions, but for two Opinions of the Court, spaced four years apart. And none is newer than four years old.
I'm afraid I don't share your opinion that Thomas evinces any brilliance and, in fact, I think his comments lack analysis and Constitutional scholarship. No Justice who believes there is no such thing as stare decisis and, thus misses the entire point of the Court's body of work is ever going to be someone I consider brilliant.

So tell me, which of his comments resonates for you? What about them do you think is briliant?

 

[red states rule]

Do you think his comments lack analysis and Constitutional scholarship because he does not read the Constitution as a liberal does?
Perhaps you do not like Justice Thomas because he cannot find where the Constitution grants abortion and gay marrage as a constitutional right.
The bottom libe is, Justice Thiomas has been the victim of racist remarks from the left because he dares to be conservative in his views.

 

[red states rule]

Here is a great atricle I found on Justice Thomas...........


http://www.townhall.com/opinion/books_entertainment/reviews/JudithNiewiadomski/140951.html

The black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass said, “Without struggle, there is no progress.” Successful people in every walk of life grow in character and ability by seeking new and greater challenges to master.

In Judging Thomas, Ken Foskett shows Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's struggles against poverty and prejudice as well as the determination to earn respect through excellence. Justice Thomas' life has proved his approach correct—hard work prevails over prejudice.

Clarence Thomas came of age when Americans were struggling to rethink their perceptions about race and their attitudes toward blacks. Forced to confront their actions, Americans chose to change their behavior in order to live up to their principles. But today, Justice Thomas and other black conservatives face a subtler, more ingrained prejudice in the attitude of the Left. Foskett notes Thomas's resentment of the condescension implicit in the Left's insistence upon affirmative action, an attitude that only results in personal criticisms of him rather than honest discussion of the merits of his opinions.

According to the book, the Left accuses Justice Thomas of not understanding the struggles of blacks, but their ideology blinds them. He has struggled more than most—living in the segregated South, being the only black person in most of his schools. But he met those challenges and became stronger, wiser, and more resolved to maintain his dignity and self respect by retaining the freedom to rise or fall by his own efforts. His solution to educational disadvantage became studying harder, not more government money.

Outraged that Justice Thomas rejects policies they consider “must haves,” the Left has ignored the personal initiatives he has taken. Thomas was the first Supreme Court Justice to bring inner city DC schoolchildren into his office to help them seize the opportunities of the constitutional republic and free enterprise system. He realized that it is easy to take someone else's money and toss it at a problem, but without the giving of self, it does not provide the guidance, example, and encouragement of those who have faced challenges and found a way.

But, as Judging Thomas points out, Clarence Thomas has thought for himself throughout his life, proving the Left's ideas faulty by his exceptional success. He read the works of black nationalists and flirted with the black power movement, but quickly realized that their methods were neither true to American principles, nor effective for the success of blacks. Instead, he led in actions that were more thoughtful, principled, and personally risky, a mark of courage and independence when just going along with the faulty ideologies would have been the comfortable thing to do.

Justice Thomas has earned respect by both his efforts and respecting the freedoms of Americans. In his view, those who disparage him for individual thinking, which has provided success for black and white alike, would rather have him subservient. He understands that focusing on victimization denies the dignity of the individual, and prohibits him from developing to his uttermost.

One thing lacking from Judging Thomas is substantive portions of Justice Thomas's opinions, writings that most people have not taken the time to read. Justice Thomas's writings are exquisitely logical, substantiated by history, straightforward and well written. In fact, other Supreme Court justices and Constitutional scholars have commended the high quality of Thomas's work. Unfortunately, all that people hear about Justice Thomas' work are sound bites like that of Senate Minority Leader Reid, who claimed Justice Thomas's Supreme Court opinions were “poorly written.” He obviously has either not read them, or his standard for quality must be whether or not he agrees with the opinion. Including some of those opinions in this book would have been a great testament to the hard work and individual thinking that has dominated Thomas' life.



Copyright © 2005 Townhall.com

 

[Dr Grump]

Red State

You were specifically asked what YOU thought about Thomas and what made him a great justice. Stop cutting and pasting and give us YOUR opinion on what makes him great.

 

[Dr Grump]

GotZoom, I had your reaction. Though I'm not surprised that "jasendorf" is white. The most eager white-bashing, unconditional black worshippers are...

white.

It's funny. "jasendorf" is basically doing what slavemasters did to blacks: OBJECTIFY THEM. He or she has simply decided to make a fetish of blacks, regardless of who they really are, as a bow to political fashion. I doubt "jasendorf" lives in a black neighborhood or has a welter of black friends. He or she, like the rest of us, is an educated white person sitting behind a computer who's gotten a liberal notion or two, that's all. If "jasendorf" were sitting in traffic in East New York and a black thug came up to his/her car and starting banging on the window and yelling "open up!", "jasendorf" would wet his/her pants. Somehow, I doubt this has ever happened to "jasendorf." He/she has probably led a very sheltered life in the suburbs.

But is has obviously happened to you because you think whites are just that little bit more superior and should never mix with blacks...how enlightened you are!

 

[red states rule]

Red State

You were specifically asked what YOU thought about Thomas and what made him a great justice. Stop cutting and pasting and give us YOUR opinion on what makes him great.

Over the years, Justice Thomas' jurisprudence has evolved into what is arguably the Court's most conservative. He is considered a champion of two conservative judicial doctrines - originalism and strict constructionism.

Originalist doctrine seeks to discern the original intent of the Constitution's framers. It is antithetical to the judicial activism many conservatives liken to legislating from the bench to achieve political ends. The most polarizing example of judicial activism revolves around Roe v. Wade, which bore the right to an abortion from the right to privacy. An originalist would argue that the framers never contemplated the right to an abortion, thus only Congress or the states can manufacture such a right. The originalist is not concerned that the right to abortion exists, but that it should be created though the appropriate means rather than a politically-charged court decision.

Strict constructionism, the other bedrock of Justice Thomas' judicial philosophy, comes into play where the Constitution is silent on an issue or original intent is unclear. A strict constructionist would analyze the textual construction of federal law so as to rule in keeping with its legislated intent.

In principle, the concept is easy - but it can be grueling in practice. Sometimes even strict constructionists differ in their interpretations of the textual meaning of a given law. What is important, however, is their common goal to rule not on their personal inclinations but on the content of the actual text of law.

 

[Said1]

Over the years, Justice Thomas' jurisprudence has evolved into what is arguably the Court's most conservative. He is considered a champion of two conservative judicial doctrines - originalism and strict constructionism.

Originalist doctrine seeks to discern the original intent of the Constitution's framers. It is antithetical to the judicial activism many conservatives liken to legislating from the bench to achieve political ends. The most polarizing example of judicial activism revolves around Roe v. Wade, which bore the right to an abortion from the right to privacy. An originalist would argue that the framers never contemplated the right to an abortion, thus only Congress or the states can manufacture such a right. The originalist is not concerned that the right to abortion exists, but that it should be created though the appropriate means rather than a politically-charged court decision.

Strict constructionism, the other bedrock of Justice Thomas' judicial philosophy, comes into play where the Constitution is silent on an issue or original intent is unclear. A strict constructionist would analyze the textual construction of federal law so as to rule in keeping with its legislated intent.

In principle, the concept is easy - but it can be grueling in practice. Sometimes even strict constructionists differ in their interpretations of the textual meaning of a given law. What is important, however, is their common goal to rule not on their personal inclinations but on the content of the actual text of law.

Forget this? http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVHicksThomas1204.html


Wouldn't want you to catch hell for forgetting the link.

 

[jillian]

Over the years, Justice Thomas' jurisprudence has evolved into what is arguably the Court's most conservative. He is considered a champion of two conservative judicial doctrines - originalism and strict constructionism.

Originalist doctrine seeks to discern the original intent of the Constitution's framers. It is antithetical to the judicial activism many conservatives liken to legislating from the bench to achieve political ends. The most polarizing example of judicial activism revolves around Roe v. Wade, which bore the right to an abortion from the right to privacy. An originalist would argue that the framers never contemplated the right to an abortion, thus only Congress or the states can manufacture such a right. The originalist is not concerned that the right to abortion exists, but that it should be created though the appropriate means rather than a politically-charged court decision.

Strict constructionism, the other bedrock of Justice Thomas' judicial philosophy, comes into play where the Constitution is silent on an issue or original intent is unclear. A strict constructionist would analyze the textual construction of federal law so as to rule in keeping with its legislated intent.

In principle, the concept is easy - but it can be grueling in practice. Sometimes even strict constructionists differ in their interpretations of the textual meaning of a given law. What is important, however, is their common goal to rule not on their personal inclinations but on the content of the actual text of law.

Awwwwwww...how cute. You were asked to stop cutting and pasting and show some understanding. In response, you simply plagarized and violated the copyright laws. How cute. Unless you're Jeffrey Brian Hicks, of course. RAFLMAI!!!

I think this is the link you forgot. :tng:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVHicksThomas1204.html

 

[Dr Grump]

Isn't this the part where Said and Jill go "snap"?

 

[jillian]

Forget this? http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVHicksThomas1204.html


Wouldn't want you to catch hell for forgetting the link.

Cyber high five to ya, Said1!

 

[Said1]

I'm sure it was an accident, could happen to anyone.

 

[jillian]

Isn't this the part where Said and Jill go "snap"?

Heh! :teeth:

I'm sure it was an accident, could happen to anyone.

Oh yeah, I'm sure it was totally innocent. :happy2:

 

[Dr Grump]

Actually I'm pretty pissed off. The words "naivity" and "Grump" usually don't go hand-in-hand. I asked RSR a fair question and I didn't even think he/she would be crass enough to pass off other's comments as their own. Lotsa folk I disagree with (Sitarro and Kathianne come to mind) who give in-depth answers, and I have always assumed it is their own words. Now RSR has me second-guessing, which as I stated pisses me off. I hope you just forgot the link RSR - if not, you have no credibility in my eyes. That may not bother you, to which I say que sera sera...

 

[sitarro]

Hey Jilian,

What is your major?

 

[sitarro]

Actually I'm pretty pissed off. The words "naivity" and "Grump" usually don't go hand-in-hand. I asked RSR a fair question and I didn't even think he/she would be crass enough to pass off other's comments as their own. Lotsa folk I disagree with (Sitarro and Kathianne come to mind) who give in-depth answers, and I have always assumed it is their own words. Now RSR has me second-guessing, which as I stated pisses me off. I hope you just forgot the link RSR - if not, you have no credibility in my eyes. That may not bother you, to which I say que sera sera...

Speaking of lack of credibility, Bill Clinton? Here is a guy who never met a black person he wouldn't use. He even made sure while cheating at golf, that he had a black man in his foursome(Vernon Jordan), his little secret way of keeping the press from accusing him of playing an elitist white guy game. I've spoken to a number of people who had the misfortune of getting stuck playing golf while he played Clinton rules. The way a man plays a game like golf tells a lot about what they are like in life. Improving your lie, taking mulligans on every shot and still lying about something so inconsequential as a golf score says volumes about the lack of integrity that defines Bill Clinton.

The first black President, how insulting to the entire black race.....even snoop dogg should feel pissed on.

 

[red states rule]

Actually I'm pretty pissed off. The words "naivity" and "Grump" usually don't go hand-in-hand. I asked RSR a fair question and I didn't even think he/she would be crass enough to pass off other's comments as their own. Lotsa folk I disagree with (Sitarro and Kathianne come to mind) who give in-depth answers, and I have always assumed it is their own words. Now RSR has me second-guessing, which as I stated pisses me off. I hope you just forgot the link RSR - if not, you have no credibility in my eyes. That may not bother you, to which I say que sera sera...

If you check my other posts I list my source and post the link
I made a mistake and I admit it
I do not make the same mistake twice and I thank said1 for finding my error

 

[jillian]

Hey Jilian,

What is your major?

That would be: what *was* my major.

Why?

 

[Dr Grump]

Speaking of lack of credibility, Bill Clinton? Here is a guy who never met a black person he wouldn't use. He even made sure while cheating at golf, that he had a black man in his foursome(Vernon Jordan), his little secret way of keeping the press from accusing him of playing an elitist white guy game. I've spoken to a number of people who had the misfortune of getting stuck playing golf while he played Clinton rules. The way a man plays a game like golf tells a lot about what they are like in life. Improving your lie, taking mulligans on every shot and still lying about something so inconsequential as a golf score says volumes about the lack of integrity that defines Bill Clinton.

The first black President, how insulting to the entire black race.....even snoop dogg should feel pissed on.

I certainly have probs with his integrity in such matters, but I do feel that he really was interested in helping the little guy. No so much because he was such a "compassionate" guy, more due to his ego and wanting to be remembered as a guy who made a difference...

As for credibility itself...nobody has a monopoly on that. IMO, George Bush jnr will go down as the one of the worse/insignificant presidents in US history making Chester Arthur look like the Brad Pitt of his time....