Clarence Thomas
Jeff Martin
that he was nominated at all.
Here is a man who has been a judge less than 1 1/2 years.
He was ranked as "qualified" by the Bar Assoc. (just barely made that)
There are only twp reasons he was nominated:
1. He has conservative views (Bush liked that)
2. He was black (hard to vote against)
It's a shame when the color of a man's skin has ANY importance in these
proceedings.
For the longest time we have been hearing how he "pulled himself up and
made something of his life" and "what a role model he is to yound black
men"....
Who cares ?
Why does this matter ?
THE ONLY things which should be taken into consideration for a Supreme
Court nominee is their Judicial record/experience.
It doesn't matter if they are white, black, green, red, male, female..
whatever.
And now we have Thomas claiming racially motivated overtones.
Now I am not saying that some Senators do not want a black man on the court
What I am saying is that that SHOULDN'T matter. Nomination should be
based on Judicial experience. And on that, Clarence Thomas just doesn't
have the record/experience to warrant a position on the Supreme Court.
Bush nominated Thomas because he (Bush) knew that the Southern Democrats
would have a politically difficult time voting against Thomas, regardless
of Thomas' judicial inexperience.
Senators should vote their conscience, and not by what will help them win
re-election.
All IMHO of course. :-)
-----------------
"Well, it looks as if the top part fell on the bottom part."
-- Vice President Dan Quayle referring to the
collapsed section of the 880 freeway after
the San Francisco earthquake of 1989.
-----------------
Andrew C. Aiken
>With all the talk of "did he" or "didn't he" I thinks it was a travesty
>that he was nominated at all.
>Here is a man who has been a judge less than 1 1/2 years.
Earl Warren was never a judge before. Neither was Wm. Renquist.
Experience as a judge has never been considered to be a determining
factor.
>He was ranked as "qualified" by the Bar Assoc. (just barely made that)
The Bar Association forsaked its neutrality when it
took a position on abortion.
>There are only twp reasons he was nominated:
> 1. He has conservative views (Bush liked that)
So what? Why would Bush nominate a liberal?
When FDR packed the court with "liberal" justices, (They would
be considered conservatives nowadays) all the cries for
"fairness" were heard from conservatives. "Fairness," when it
comes to politics, it just a euphemism for giving the loser
a break...
> 2. He was black (hard to vote against)
I must admit that I found this cynical, but many black
leaders urged that a black be nominated. So I think that it is best to
conclude that George Bush is not the only one who is playing racial
politics. It is not right, just endemic.
>It's a shame when the color of a man's skin has ANY importance in these
>proceedings.
I agree completely, but as Thurgood Marshall said,
"You can't ignore it."
>For the longest time we have been hearing how he "pulled himself up and
>made something of his life" and "what a role model he is to yound black
>men"....
>Who cares ?
>Why does this matter ?
>THE ONLY things which should be taken into consideration for a Supreme
>Court nominee is their Judicial record/experience.
Come now. Do you actually expect the United States Senate
to be above demagogery and manipulation? Most of the Senators who
are against the appointment of Judge (Justice by the time you read
this) Thomas were against him on the basis of political philosophy.
>It doesn't matter if they are white, black, green, red, male, female..
>whatever.
>And now we have Thomas claiming racially motivated overtones.
There were no racial overtones in the media coverage of
the character and beliefs of Judge Thomas? They spoke of 'black
conservatives,' as if the term were an oxymoron. Thomas did not
inject race into this mess. The black leaders who claimed that
Thomas was 'a discredit to his race' did. All of the people who
pointed up his white wife, as if it were merely another piece of
dirt on him, did. Those who screeched that he had 'forgotten his
roots' did.
Andrew Aiken
"...the Judiciary Committee hearings have been a three-day commercial
for term limitations." -- Peggy Noonan, NYT Oct. 15
"What act of legislature was there that thou shouldst be happy?
A little while ago though hadst no right to be at all...."
-- Carlyle
Joanne Green-Blose
>With all the talk of "did he" or "didn't he" I thinks it was a travesty
>that he was nominated at all.
>
>Here is a man who has been a judge less than 1 1/2 years.
>
>He was ranked as "qualified" by the Bar Assoc. (just barely made that)
>
This to be distinguished from their "highly qualified" rating.
Qualified means he has only met minimum requirements. Highly
qualified means that the individual is basically more qualified then
the passing rating. Is this to say that Bush could find no one else
who could do better than just pass? There are no highly qualified
people to draw from?
Just off the top of my head there is Ferdinand Fernandez, a Federal
appeals judge with at least 6 years of judicial experience. There is Pamela
Rymer, another Federal appeals judge, with at least 8 years of judicial
experience.
>There are only twp reasons he was nominated:
>
> 1. He has conservative views (Bush liked that)
> 2. He was black (hard to vote against)
>-----------------
Bush hasn't won a lot of respect from me on his nominations, he did
pick Quayle after all as his running mate despite a rich choice of
better candidates.
>*>*>*>*>*>*<*<*<*<*<*<
* Joanne Greene-Blose * "The God I believe in isn't short
* j...@ssd.kodak.com * of cash!" -Bono, Bullet
>*>*>*>*>*>*<*<*<*<*<*< the Blue Sky
Matthew Wright
experience when he was nominated?
MATT
Paul Gerwitz
|>
|> [deleted]
|> It's a shame when the color of a man's skin has ANY importance in these
|> proceedings.
|>
before the nomination that Bush should nominate a black, woman, hispanic.
I even heard arguments that Bush should nominate someone with the same
"open minded commitment to individual rights" as Thurgood Marshall
I guess we no longer care about the best qualified, just whether we meet
some equity with respect to race, philosophical view etc.
|> For the longest time we have been hearing how he "pulled himself up and
|> made something of his life" and "what a role model he is to yound black
|> men"....
|>
|> Who cares ?
As a white male, I can't relate to the importance of black role models in
their cultural background, but as a male, role models, mentors and other
such individuals are very important to the maturation process.
|>
|> Why does this matter ?
Because his life demonstrates some very important issues to the nation,
Just as Thurgood Marshall's life and philosophy did during his tenure.
|>
|> THE ONLY things which should be taken into consideration for a Supreme
|> Court nominee is their Judicial record/experience.
What is "judicial experience"? Seems a pretty vague term, open to much
speculation and debate, and since we can't seem to define it, maybe that is
why their is such a divergent opinion whether CT is qualified.
|>
|> Now I am not saying that some Senators do not want a black man on the court
|> What I am saying is that that SHOULDN'T matter. Nomination should be
|> based on Judicial experience. And on that, Clarence Thomas just doesn't
|> have the record/experience to warrant a position on the Supreme Court.
|>
|> Bush nominated Thomas because he (Bush) knew that the Southern Democrats
|> would have a politically difficult time voting against Thomas, regardless
|> of Thomas' judicial inexperience.
Bush nominated whom he wanted, regardless of everyone elses opinions.
Would you be so quick to criticize a democratic president nominating a
liberal minded judge?
|>
|> Senators should vote their conscience, and not by what will help them win
|> re-election.
That's why the constitution calls for Senate confirmation of Presidential
appointments. How the senators vote is their decision and then their
responsibility. I heard Sen. Harkin on Good Morning America today, trying
to pin the blame for this spectacle on Bush. He was implying that it was
the nomination of Thomas that caused the problem. It never ceases to amaze
me how some politicians just won't accept responsibility for their own
actions.
|>
|> All IMHO of course. :-)
|>
Thank you for your opinion, I sincerly appreciate the opportunity to hear
it.
Of course.....this is all IMHO too.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul F Gerwitz WA2WPI | SMTP: ger...@kodak.com |
| Eastman Kodak Co | UUCP: ..uunet!atexnet!kodak!eastman!gerwitz |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Josh Rovero
*no* previous judicial experience.
He was also the governor of California who sent many thousands of
Americans of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps.
But *HE* was qualified......
--
Josh Rovero (rov...@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 53...@cc.nps.navy.mil
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv | Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS
Naval Postgraduate School |
Monterey, CA 93943 (408) 646-3255 |
Marc R.
Josh,
Was he qualified, or did he just get in the position?
Think about it.
--
Marc Rassbach ma...@marque.mu.edu If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not ma...@milestn.mke.wi.us is your problem, not mine!
my problem! If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Josh Rovero
about the Warren court!