She is very qualified. She isn’t going to say how she might vote on an issue that could come before the Supreme Court and no other nominee has either. So we’re going to get a couple more days of asking her about the “wise Latina woman” quote ad nauseam.
If Clarence Thomas is found qualified by the U.S. Senate, then any one with a law degree can be found qualified. Thomas’ confirmation lowered the bar so much a snail would hit his shell passing under it.
GNW, I like qualified candidates. Sotomayor is one. Clarence Thomas was not, IMHO. He had served less than two years as a judge when Bush 41 picked him.
His performance in the hearings was a joke, all that outrage about it being “a high-tech lynching of an uppity black” was such bunk. IMHO.
After watching the hearings, i asked two good friends who were black — a Republican male business executive and a Democrat female nursing executive — what they thought. They both said they believed Thomas did what Hill said during his EEOC days and they both believed he lied during the hearings.
I felt somewhat gratified that my two friends saw it the same way I did.
From my avatar of the Statue of Liberty you may have guessed I am politically a libertarian. (small l) We have many blogs and especially Volokh. Two of our principles are actually going to testify before the Senate on Sotomayor. Well respected law professors.
Thomas is very quiet, doesn’t ask questions and doesn’t make waves. When these libertarian professors rank the court Thomas is considered the best. His opinions are well thought out, consistent and follow the words as written. Those who believe in a “living” constitution therefore dislike him.
What has shocked many is he has on a few occasions actually gotten Scalia to change an opinion, very seldom the other way.
In contradistinction from Sotomayor if you wanted a conservative black justice there were not a lot of choices. He turned out to be a very good one.
GNW, I hope your two professors are correct and Thomas is what they say. My impressions are based largely on what I witnessed during his confirmation and it was entirely negative.
What I have read is that Bush 41 picked Thomas because they were most sure of his conservative bent and because he had no more than a smidgen of a judicial record for senators to review having been a judge less than two years. By comparison, Sotomayor has a lengthy record.
BCS: What you say about Bush 41 and Thomas and as said before how many other appellate level black conservatives were there? If you read Thomas he writes well, not brilliantly, and thinks differently than the other 8.
Sotomayor indeed had an extensive record and not much negative to pick on. Her Ricci, 2A and Kelo type cases were strong negatives but she invoked the I was only following orders excuse.
Thomas writes, at times reasonably well, as he rubber stamps Scalia on most cases. His actions at EEOC were simply awful, and he definitely benefited from the affirmative action known as “the good old boys network”. When he’s written in the minority, his contempt for much of the Constitution surfaces.
dtroutma: May I suggest if you wish to be taken seriously you avoid inane statements like ” his contempt for much of the constitution surfaces”.
Apparently he interprets the constitution differently from the way you do. He is not a follower of judicial realism or the living constitution which is evidence he does indeed truly revere our basic law. Those who are prepared to discard the constitution because it doesn’t enable them to achieve the PC goals they have set are the ones who have contempt for the Bill of Rights.
Howie, are you saying you were impressed with Thomas’ intelligence, thoughtfulness, integrity, temperament and depth of knowledge of the law?
I recall him saying over and over again he wasn’t familiar with past cases and legal concepts which is FAR different than not commenting on legal concepts that may come before the Court in the future.
and I won’t even go into how Specter treated Anita Hill and as Chairman allowed two male “acquaintances” to testify about their perception of Hill at a party, something to the effect of they thought she looked like she “wanted” it.
One of the most disgusting scenes to ever occur in a Senate chamber, even if you don’t believe Hill’s charges. No court would hear “testimony” from two men who were apparently chomping at the bit for their 15 min. of fame and eager to share their “feelings” about how they perceived the aura of a woman they don’t even know. Despicable in the extreme. Do you remember those two clowns?
So Howie, if that didn’t bother you …. i’ll let it go at that
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
She is very qualified. She isn’t going to say how she might vote on an issue that could come before the Supreme Court and no other nominee has either. So we’re going to get a couple more days of asking her about the “wise Latina woman” quote ad nauseam.
If Clarence Thomas is found qualified by the U.S. Senate, then any one with a law degree can be found qualified. Thomas’ confirmation lowered the bar so much a snail would hit his shell passing under it.
Redwarrior almost 15 years ago
Why is her leg in a cast?
nomad2112 almost 15 years ago
Now that’s just wrong. You won’t find a proctoscope at a dentist’s office.
4uk4ata almost 15 years ago
Hey now, don’t forget artistic license. After all, I have had neither an elephant nor a donkey as my dentist either :) .
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
redwarrior, she broke her ankle (or mayber her leg) and she’s still in cast and healing
4uk, that was quite funny … thanks
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
BCS- re Thomas You don’t like affirmative action candidates? You think they are underqualified? Welcome to my world.
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
GNW, I like qualified candidates. Sotomayor is one. Clarence Thomas was not, IMHO. He had served less than two years as a judge when Bush 41 picked him.
His performance in the hearings was a joke, all that outrage about it being “a high-tech lynching of an uppity black” was such bunk. IMHO.
After watching the hearings, i asked two good friends who were black — a Republican male business executive and a Democrat female nursing executive — what they thought. They both said they believed Thomas did what Hill said during his EEOC days and they both believed he lied during the hearings.
I felt somewhat gratified that my two friends saw it the same way I did.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
From my avatar of the Statue of Liberty you may have guessed I am politically a libertarian. (small l) We have many blogs and especially Volokh. Two of our principles are actually going to testify before the Senate on Sotomayor. Well respected law professors.
Thomas is very quiet, doesn’t ask questions and doesn’t make waves. When these libertarian professors rank the court Thomas is considered the best. His opinions are well thought out, consistent and follow the words as written. Those who believe in a “living” constitution therefore dislike him.
What has shocked many is he has on a few occasions actually gotten Scalia to change an opinion, very seldom the other way.
In contradistinction from Sotomayor if you wanted a conservative black justice there were not a lot of choices. He turned out to be a very good one.
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
GNW, I hope your two professors are correct and Thomas is what they say. My impressions are based largely on what I witnessed during his confirmation and it was entirely negative.
What I have read is that Bush 41 picked Thomas because they were most sure of his conservative bent and because he had no more than a smidgen of a judicial record for senators to review having been a judge less than two years. By comparison, Sotomayor has a lengthy record.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
BCS: What you say about Bush 41 and Thomas and as said before how many other appellate level black conservatives were there? If you read Thomas he writes well, not brilliantly, and thinks differently than the other 8.
Sotomayor indeed had an extensive record and not much negative to pick on. Her Ricci, 2A and Kelo type cases were strong negatives but she invoked the I was only following orders excuse.
Dtroutma almost 15 years ago
Thomas writes, at times reasonably well, as he rubber stamps Scalia on most cases. His actions at EEOC were simply awful, and he definitely benefited from the affirmative action known as “the good old boys network”. When he’s written in the minority, his contempt for much of the Constitution surfaces.
GNWachs almost 15 years ago
dtroutma: May I suggest if you wish to be taken seriously you avoid inane statements like ” his contempt for much of the constitution surfaces”.
Apparently he interprets the constitution differently from the way you do. He is not a follower of judicial realism or the living constitution which is evidence he does indeed truly revere our basic law. Those who are prepared to discard the constitution because it doesn’t enable them to achieve the PC goals they have set are the ones who have contempt for the Bill of Rights.
believecommonsense almost 15 years ago
Howie, are you saying you were impressed with Thomas’ intelligence, thoughtfulness, integrity, temperament and depth of knowledge of the law?
I recall him saying over and over again he wasn’t familiar with past cases and legal concepts which is FAR different than not commenting on legal concepts that may come before the Court in the future.
and I won’t even go into how Specter treated Anita Hill and as Chairman allowed two male “acquaintances” to testify about their perception of Hill at a party, something to the effect of they thought she looked like she “wanted” it.
One of the most disgusting scenes to ever occur in a Senate chamber, even if you don’t believe Hill’s charges. No court would hear “testimony” from two men who were apparently chomping at the bit for their 15 min. of fame and eager to share their “feelings” about how they perceived the aura of a woman they don’t even know. Despicable in the extreme. Do you remember those two clowns?
So Howie, if that didn’t bother you …. i’ll let it go at that