Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

OAITW r.2.0

(24,504 posts)
Fri Mar 29, 2024, 02:52 AM Mar 29

We can thank George H.W. Bush for Clarence Thomas. He gets full credit.

I don't know what to think of this person, 34 years on the SC and what legal doctrine does he follow? Or is his opinion mailed in by the Federalist society in exchange for hi-discount gas cards?

16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

DFW

(54,403 posts)
3. Actually, you'd have to thank his dad
Fri Mar 29, 2024, 03:08 AM
Mar 29

Thomas dates from 1991. W wouldn’t even have known what questions to ask a potential nominee to the Supreme Court. Roberts and Alito are Cheney’s creations (hey, we got this scam called “Citizens United,” but it doesn’t work unless the Supreme Court upholds it. Will you so vote, or do I need another nominee?)

NJCher

(35,684 posts)
4. After watching him on Alex
Fri Mar 29, 2024, 03:12 AM
Mar 29

Wagner’s show, a thought that surged through my head was a previous interview in which he professed his alliance with Ginni.

I remember watching that and thinking, “this is not normal. You don’t even have a self, do you?”

JustAnotherGen

(31,828 posts)
11. He's Just Tom
Fri Mar 29, 2024, 06:50 AM
Mar 29

Like Just Ken - and he's taking his lack of agency in his own marriage out on every single woman in America.

JHB

(37,160 posts)
9. Him, and conservativers in general, ever since they made it a project to put operatives on the bench
Fri Mar 29, 2024, 06:44 AM
Mar 29

Ever since Bork. And in hindsight, despite all the conservative shouting about it, did anything Kennedy said turn out to be inaccurate?
And so they kept at it. They thought Souter was one, but that turned out to be a misfire. He had a mind of his own.
Boy, did they make sure they never made that mistake again.

To quote myself from (looks at watch) ten years ago:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4572812

The reason Thomas was put on the SC was...
...NOT because he was the most qualified jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black conservative jurist. He wasn't.

He was the most qualified black conservative with reliable but obfuscatable views on abortion & other subjects, and was young enough that he'd stay on the court for decades.

The Democratic senators were initially ready to give him a pass, since 1) they didn't look forward to another SC nomination battle, and 2) initially the black community was receptive to Thomas -- not enthusiastic, but not inclined to oppose -- and a fight against him wouldn't be well received.

At the time I thought Thomas should have been voted down just because of his lackluster record and ignoring conflict of interest (Thomas failed to recuse himself in a case involving the Ralston Purina company, where his political mentor Sen. John Danforth owned millions in stock and had brothers on the board of directors. Thomas' decision in favor of Purina directly benefited his pals).

Black opinion didn't shift until later in the process, after Thurgood Marshall made his "a black snake is still a snake" comment. The senators were finally forced to take a harder line when the harassment charges leaked out, and giving Thomas a pass would piss off another Democratic constituency: women fighting workplace harassment.

But all that happened too late: by that point conservatives were ginned up in support and the rest of the establishment didn't want another high-profile fight, so the Thomas hearings were kept to a he-said-she-said with Anita Hill (Angela Wright was shunted off to the side), giving the senators their excuse to just put it behind them.

So here we are, a quarter-century later, and he's still a lackluster jurist who ignores conflicts of interest, and is a reliable conservative operative in the courts.

brooklynite

(94,591 posts)
12. I give partial credit to Justin Thurgood Marshall...
Fri Mar 29, 2024, 07:05 AM
Mar 29

He was 72 when Reagan beat Carter, who never got a SC appointment. He could have retired after the election and the Democratic Senate could have approved a young liberal justice.

SocialDemocrat61

(607 posts)
16. Carter lost to Reagan in 1980
Fri Mar 29, 2024, 10:39 AM
Mar 29

Marshall left the court in 1991 and died in 93. He had no way of knowing in 80 that Democrats would lose the next 2 elections. Maybe blame Democrats for nominating 2 terrible candidates in a row instead of blaming a great man like Marshall.

Ursus Rex

(148 posts)
15. Biden also was hostile to Anita Hill during the confirmation hearings.
Fri Mar 29, 2024, 09:45 AM
Mar 29

I remember watching with horror and fascination at the whole nasty spectacle.

I'm very glad that he (Biden) has come around to the new political realities of the US.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»We can thank George H.W. ...