R
Raymond
Guest
On Oct 1, 2:36?pm, "ShitOnTheRight" <kidGWBoo h...@CrawfordRanch.net>
wrote:
> The Roberts-Scalia-Thomas-Alito- and-sometimes-Kennedy fivesome on the Court
> today is the closest the country has come to the domination of the third
> branch of government by the same ideology that gave us the Bush
> administration and its Congressional and Fourth Estate enablers.
>
> We're working our way backward through the '90s. With OJ Simpson again on
> the national stage, it was inevitable that Clarence Thomas would follow. The
> Thomas confirmation hearings were a milestone in real-time mass-mediated
> American psychodrama. Before the Juice, there was Long Dong Silver. Before
> the bloody glove, there was the pubic-hairy Coke can. Before the suicidal
> white Bronco driver, there was the victimized black conservative martyr.
> Before there was OJ's jury nullification, there was Thomas' "high-tech
> lynching," which acquitted him right onto the Supreme Court.
>
> I still recall being so obsessed by the Judiciary Committee hearings that I
> listened to them through an earphone while pushing a baby stroller through
> the mall. I remember watching Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch hard at work,
> attempting to destroy Anita Hill, and finally understanding what the Salem
> Witch Trials must have been like. I remember being torn between awe at
> Chairman Joe Biden's pomposity and amazement at the goings-on in his scalp.
> I remember calling my friend Jack Rosenthal, then the editor of the
> editorial page of the New York Times, nearly every day, haranguing him to
> stiffen the Senate's opposition. To this day, I recall my revulsion at
> George H.W. Bush's cynically gleeful, preposterous attempt to frame the
> Thomas nomination as a filling of the Thurgood Marshall seat.
>
> It turns out, of course, that the alarming character traits Anita Hill
> observed in her boss Clarence Thomas were nothing compared to the nutcase
> judicial temperament he has since revealed. At his confirmation hearing,
> Thomas -- like Marshall before him, and Roberts and Alito after him -- paid
> tribute to stare decisis, the importance of precedent in guiding Supreme
> Court decisions. But no less an authority than arch-conservative fellow
> Associate Justice Antonin Scalia told Thomas' biographer, Ken Foskett, that
> Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." If you think nutcase is
> too strong a word to summarize that view, listen again to Scalia, as quoted
> in this Terry Gross interview with Jeff Toobin about his new Supreme Court
> book, The Nine:
>
> Mr. TOOBIN: Clarence Thomas is not just the most conservative member of
> the Rehnquist court or the Roberts court. He's the most conservative justice
> to serve on the court since the 1930s. If you take what Thomas says
> seriously, if you read his opinions, particularly about issues like the
> scope of the federal government, he basically thinks that the entire work of
> the New Deal is unconstitutional. He really believes in a conception of the
> federal government that hasn't been supported by the justices since Franklin
> Roosevelt made his appointments to the court. You know, I went to a speech
> that Justice Scalia gave at a synagogue here in New York a couple of years
> ago, and someone asked him, `What's the difference between your judicial
> philosophy and Justice Thomas?' I thought a very good question. And Scalia
> talked for a while and he said, `Look, I'm a conservative. I'm a
> texturalist. I'm an originalist. But I'm not a nut.' And I thought that...
> GROSS: Meaning that he thinks Thomas is one.
> Mr. TOOBIN: Well, that was certainly the implication.
> GROSS: Mm-hmm.
> Mr. TOOBIN: It was pretty amazing. I mean, Thomas is well outside the
> mainstream, even of the conservatives on the court.
>
> The Roberts-Scalia-Thomas-Alito-and-sometimes-Kennedy fivesome on the Court
> today is the closest the country has come to the domination of the third
> branch of government by the same ideology that gave us the Bush
> administration and its Congressional and Fourth Estate enablers.
>
> If Justice Stevens can hang on, and if Democrats can nominate and confirm
> his successor, there is a chance that the Constitution can continue to rely
> on the better angels of Justice Kennedy's nature. But even so, I fear that
> the first Monday in October has lost an essential element of its grandeur
> for years to come. When Justice Souter wept after the Bush v. Gore decision,
> he was not only mourning the naked politicization of justice; he was
> anticipating the tragic abrogation of the Constitution that we have
> experienced in the seven years since. No reaction to that silent coup is
> more appallingly prescient than what Justice Thomas now tells us in his
> memoir was his reaction when his wife came to him in his bath to say that
> the Senate had confirmed him 52 to 48: "Whoop-dee-damn-doo."
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/mr-justice-whoopdeedam_b_6...
>
> Who's the racist? I see that republicans are a dim bulbs just like your
> hero, Clarence "Uncle" Thomas. Your hero, who was put on the Supreme Court
> for his skin color, hates his own race even more than he hates women.
> Thomas freely took advantage of Affirmative Action to get where he is, then
> cut off the tap for everyone else. He is not even a blip on the radar screen
> of justices who have rendered well-thought out decisions, and helped the
> American People. It is well-known that he is joined to Scalia at the hip.
> They deserve each other. We, the American People, deserve better. Clarence
> Thomas is yet another gift from the Bush crime family, shows you what they
> think of the court system and the American People.
>
> Thomas, along with his nutjob compatriot Scalia, believes that actual
> innocence is not grounds for an appeal. That's right, if you've been
> convicted of a crime, say rape, and evidence such as DNA proves you are
> actually innocent, Thomas and Scalia say "too bad, you already had your
> chance in court!"
>
> If you don't believe me, go read their opinion on Herrera v Collins.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins
Bush keeps Thomas around to rub his head for luck.
GEORGE W. BUSH RUBS MAN'S HEAD FOR "LUCK" IN DISPLAY OF APPARENT
RACIST IGNORANCE
C O U N T E R B I A S . C O M E X C L U S I V E
George W. Bush recently displayed a glimpse of his dark side as he
partook in a public display of racial insensitivity.
Before speaking to a March 3rd Los Angeles audience at the White
House
Conference on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Mr Bush was
introduced by an African-American male, whose head Mr Bush proceeded
to rub while grinning and smirking.
The man, identified as Alphonso Jackson, acting Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, appeared somewhat
bewildered while still preserving an appearance of happiness to
welcome Mr. Bush.
As an individual identified as Cory wrote in letter published online,
rubbing an African American's head for luck was at one time thought
of
as a "joke amongst those who didn't generally say "black person" when
referring to one". He noted that the racist practice "may well have
faded into obscurity", but would've been "a good way to lose a hand"
in more multi-racial neighborhoods in the late seventies and early
eighties.
Mr. Bush has long been thought of by many as a stereotypical elitist
with a notably racist, anti-black attitude, but this latest
misadventure lends credence to such an assumption.
If the intent was not a racist one, the event did make Mr. Bush
appear
somewhat condescending, as well as disrespectful of a high-ranking
government official.
...Investigating Further...
(Note: the photo has not been edited in any way. See the AP
story w/ similar photo.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Counterbias Brief (c)COUNTERBIAS.COM 2004
Filed By Counterbias Editorial Staff
http://www.counterbias.com/news001.html
wrote:
> The Roberts-Scalia-Thomas-Alito- and-sometimes-Kennedy fivesome on the Court
> today is the closest the country has come to the domination of the third
> branch of government by the same ideology that gave us the Bush
> administration and its Congressional and Fourth Estate enablers.
>
> We're working our way backward through the '90s. With OJ Simpson again on
> the national stage, it was inevitable that Clarence Thomas would follow. The
> Thomas confirmation hearings were a milestone in real-time mass-mediated
> American psychodrama. Before the Juice, there was Long Dong Silver. Before
> the bloody glove, there was the pubic-hairy Coke can. Before the suicidal
> white Bronco driver, there was the victimized black conservative martyr.
> Before there was OJ's jury nullification, there was Thomas' "high-tech
> lynching," which acquitted him right onto the Supreme Court.
>
> I still recall being so obsessed by the Judiciary Committee hearings that I
> listened to them through an earphone while pushing a baby stroller through
> the mall. I remember watching Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch hard at work,
> attempting to destroy Anita Hill, and finally understanding what the Salem
> Witch Trials must have been like. I remember being torn between awe at
> Chairman Joe Biden's pomposity and amazement at the goings-on in his scalp.
> I remember calling my friend Jack Rosenthal, then the editor of the
> editorial page of the New York Times, nearly every day, haranguing him to
> stiffen the Senate's opposition. To this day, I recall my revulsion at
> George H.W. Bush's cynically gleeful, preposterous attempt to frame the
> Thomas nomination as a filling of the Thurgood Marshall seat.
>
> It turns out, of course, that the alarming character traits Anita Hill
> observed in her boss Clarence Thomas were nothing compared to the nutcase
> judicial temperament he has since revealed. At his confirmation hearing,
> Thomas -- like Marshall before him, and Roberts and Alito after him -- paid
> tribute to stare decisis, the importance of precedent in guiding Supreme
> Court decisions. But no less an authority than arch-conservative fellow
> Associate Justice Antonin Scalia told Thomas' biographer, Ken Foskett, that
> Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." If you think nutcase is
> too strong a word to summarize that view, listen again to Scalia, as quoted
> in this Terry Gross interview with Jeff Toobin about his new Supreme Court
> book, The Nine:
>
> Mr. TOOBIN: Clarence Thomas is not just the most conservative member of
> the Rehnquist court or the Roberts court. He's the most conservative justice
> to serve on the court since the 1930s. If you take what Thomas says
> seriously, if you read his opinions, particularly about issues like the
> scope of the federal government, he basically thinks that the entire work of
> the New Deal is unconstitutional. He really believes in a conception of the
> federal government that hasn't been supported by the justices since Franklin
> Roosevelt made his appointments to the court. You know, I went to a speech
> that Justice Scalia gave at a synagogue here in New York a couple of years
> ago, and someone asked him, `What's the difference between your judicial
> philosophy and Justice Thomas?' I thought a very good question. And Scalia
> talked for a while and he said, `Look, I'm a conservative. I'm a
> texturalist. I'm an originalist. But I'm not a nut.' And I thought that...
> GROSS: Meaning that he thinks Thomas is one.
> Mr. TOOBIN: Well, that was certainly the implication.
> GROSS: Mm-hmm.
> Mr. TOOBIN: It was pretty amazing. I mean, Thomas is well outside the
> mainstream, even of the conservatives on the court.
>
> The Roberts-Scalia-Thomas-Alito-and-sometimes-Kennedy fivesome on the Court
> today is the closest the country has come to the domination of the third
> branch of government by the same ideology that gave us the Bush
> administration and its Congressional and Fourth Estate enablers.
>
> If Justice Stevens can hang on, and if Democrats can nominate and confirm
> his successor, there is a chance that the Constitution can continue to rely
> on the better angels of Justice Kennedy's nature. But even so, I fear that
> the first Monday in October has lost an essential element of its grandeur
> for years to come. When Justice Souter wept after the Bush v. Gore decision,
> he was not only mourning the naked politicization of justice; he was
> anticipating the tragic abrogation of the Constitution that we have
> experienced in the seven years since. No reaction to that silent coup is
> more appallingly prescient than what Justice Thomas now tells us in his
> memoir was his reaction when his wife came to him in his bath to say that
> the Senate had confirmed him 52 to 48: "Whoop-dee-damn-doo."
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/mr-justice-whoopdeedam_b_6...
>
> Who's the racist? I see that republicans are a dim bulbs just like your
> hero, Clarence "Uncle" Thomas. Your hero, who was put on the Supreme Court
> for his skin color, hates his own race even more than he hates women.
> Thomas freely took advantage of Affirmative Action to get where he is, then
> cut off the tap for everyone else. He is not even a blip on the radar screen
> of justices who have rendered well-thought out decisions, and helped the
> American People. It is well-known that he is joined to Scalia at the hip.
> They deserve each other. We, the American People, deserve better. Clarence
> Thomas is yet another gift from the Bush crime family, shows you what they
> think of the court system and the American People.
>
> Thomas, along with his nutjob compatriot Scalia, believes that actual
> innocence is not grounds for an appeal. That's right, if you've been
> convicted of a crime, say rape, and evidence such as DNA proves you are
> actually innocent, Thomas and Scalia say "too bad, you already had your
> chance in court!"
>
> If you don't believe me, go read their opinion on Herrera v Collins.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herrera_v._Collins
Bush keeps Thomas around to rub his head for luck.
GEORGE W. BUSH RUBS MAN'S HEAD FOR "LUCK" IN DISPLAY OF APPARENT
RACIST IGNORANCE
C O U N T E R B I A S . C O M E X C L U S I V E
George W. Bush recently displayed a glimpse of his dark side as he
partook in a public display of racial insensitivity.
Before speaking to a March 3rd Los Angeles audience at the White
House
Conference on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Mr Bush was
introduced by an African-American male, whose head Mr Bush proceeded
to rub while grinning and smirking.
The man, identified as Alphonso Jackson, acting Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, appeared somewhat
bewildered while still preserving an appearance of happiness to
welcome Mr. Bush.
As an individual identified as Cory wrote in letter published online,
rubbing an African American's head for luck was at one time thought
of
as a "joke amongst those who didn't generally say "black person" when
referring to one". He noted that the racist practice "may well have
faded into obscurity", but would've been "a good way to lose a hand"
in more multi-racial neighborhoods in the late seventies and early
eighties.
Mr. Bush has long been thought of by many as a stereotypical elitist
with a notably racist, anti-black attitude, but this latest
misadventure lends credence to such an assumption.
If the intent was not a racist one, the event did make Mr. Bush
appear
somewhat condescending, as well as disrespectful of a high-ranking
government official.
...Investigating Further...
(Note: the photo has not been edited in any way. See the AP
story w/ similar photo.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Counterbias Brief (c)COUNTERBIAS.COM 2004
Filed By Counterbias Editorial Staff
http://www.counterbias.com/news001.html