First, let me acknowledge that I've ready maybe three Dowd columns, ever, so if there is some secret to her columns that I just am not privy to, forgive me. (For example, as a lad it was only after reading many months of Russell Baker's columns and finally giving up on them that I learned that the column was supposed to be humorous.) Dowd writes, satirically, in Thomas's voice: "I used to have grave reservations about working at white institutions, subject to the whims of white superiors. But when Poppy's whim was to crown his son — one of those privileged Yale legacy types I always resented — I had to repay The Man for putting me on the court even though I was neither qualified nor honest. ... But having the power to carjack the presidency and control the fate of the country did give me that old X-rated tingle."
"Repay The Man?" "Carjack the presidency?" Not "qualified"? "X-rated tingle"? I find this about as funny as a David Duke speech, and for the same reasons.
UPDATE: At "Best of the Web," James Taranto writes: "Dowd's joke can be summed up in a few words. Q: What do Clarence Thomas and O.J. Simpson have in common? A: They're both black!"
Sorry, David, but that's pretty much all there is. She is neither insightful nor a good writer.
I don't know where Justice Thomas gets the crazy idea that he is subject to racial stereotyping because of his ideas.
Ah alas, those liberal judges had their hand too.
Not to mention that after the statewide recount, we learned that Gore could only have won IF the method used for the recount had been one he'd repudiated in court as unfair.
carjacked indeed!
I guess you missed that memo.
The problem? He is not a brilliant jurist(With the exception of the dissent on Raich, where are his brilliant opinions that we expect from a Supreme Court justice?) and he had a poorer curriculum than most justices. But again, the fact that everyone talks more about his race than his competence, or worse, that people(and himself) needs the Race Card to defend him shows that race is not a settled matter on America.
Yes, the Florida Supreme Court was quite out-of-hand, going to any length possible to allow Gore to win.
Would the NYT print that??? Doubtful!
You must have been a sweet, if earnest child, David, to fret about Russell Baker's intent.
You know who else everyone hates?
Hitler
/i keed
Of course, since she is a reliable leftist, no one gets upset when she points out that someone is an affirmative action hire and not really worthy of their position.
Read it here.
I think that's why leftists like spending government money and using government power so much. They get to give people things, and then tell them:Of course, the conservative version of this is to throw people (black and white) in jail.I guess that's why I'm a libertarian . . .
Grackle, who on the left hates Dowd so much? I am sure moderate Democrats (are there any left?) may not be foud of her, but the farther left you go, the more you can expect someone to be perfectly comfortable with her rhetoric.
Didn't she go out with Michael Douglas? Wikipedia is apparently above mentioning her tabloid trysts, sadly. I've always thought of her as incredibly incredibly hot, but too bad about her writing, it's awful.
And people still read her?
Huh, I did not know that.
But then we all knew that before she wrote this column.
He was pretty good on Kelo too.
If there is on fault I'd claim for the other eight it would be:
Too smart by half.
You can't fool me because I'm too stupid.
His lack of "brilliance" is an asset. He asserts the law is for everyman, not just lawyers.
I think he is correct.
"X-rated tingle" is quite obviously a reference to the Justice's well-documented taste for pornography. You may think this is funny or you may not (I think it's a typical Dowd cheap shot, myself), but it's certainly not racist.
nothing like a precocious middle-aged woman... "BabyBushie widjum widjum widjummmm...."
Ack.
showing off:
attended a wedding last week where Justice Thomas was a guest- a fine fellow, confident, very much at ease with himself.
So she isn't the 'reliable lefty'' people here say she is. Imagine Ann Coulter saying anything bad about the Bushes!
There's probably a good story there, and a report about the Dean's marriage would've been interesting, since Mrs. Dean would rather be treating someone's hemorrhoids than being with her husband while he's running for President of the United States.
But Dowd's article made me feel pity for Mrs. Dean, like watching the football jock pound on some poor scrawny freshman.
I could probably find it in the NYTimes archive, and see how my memory matches up with reality. . .
For a year? No, I don't see that as particularly meaningful on its own. I mean, if they had given Harriet Miers a Court of Appeals seat for a year prior to her nomination to the Supreme Court, a course of action that some people actually suggested, her nomination still would have been a pretty sad joke.
LOL... what a world.
Laura S: That is, of course, not a defense of the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore so much as it is a deflection. The fact that the Florida Supreme Court may have mishandled the case first does not excuse the U.S. Supreme Court's later decision to do the same; and in any event, I think we can and should hold federal judges (and particularly Supreme Court Justices) to higher standards than we can practically hold state judges.
Souter was on a federal circuit for two months.
Your comparison of Miers reveals your bias. Compare Souter's resume to Thomas' and then compare Miers. Thomas is as qualified as Souter (unless you consider the New Hampshire Supreme Court a huge qualification for the highest federal court in the land). Miers, not so much.
Ms. Miers appeared to not really want the job that bad, though. Kinda like Fred Thompson. ;)
My undergrad mentor argued that you have to map political persuasion along two axes. I am bastardizing his ideas but, essentially, the idea is that an individual's political persuasion is one axis, and that same individual's political temperament is the other. For people like Dowd and Coulter their arguable political convictions are just props for their more dominant intemperate behavior.
I know for a fact that I'm not the only person of my persuasion who found this column embarrassing, offensive, and patently racist (my mother and I spoke at length about it after her sister had forwarded the piece to her). I think there are very few people who think as highly of Ms. Dowd's "gifts" as she does. The sense of "humor" in her writing is, at least, able to be filtered through one's own internal microphone to adjust for pitch and timing. To hear her actually speak her "ideas" is akin to fingernails on a chalkboard. That said, someone (other than my aunt) must be reading her. What a shame.
People of principle will never find a safe place to have thoughtful, meaningful debates as long as shrill, for-a-book-deal-I'll-say-anythings hold sway in the idealogical marketplace of American media. But as long as politics are treated as sport and entertainment, I doubt anything will change.
If you really feel it's a topic worth exploring, which I hope you don't, you could check out the recent biography Supreme Discomfort, among others.
As far as pornography itself goes, I believe it was a previous court that ruled in favor of freedom of speech rights for pornography but not for obscenity, so I'm kinda unsure exactly what Thomas would be guilty of even if he had a "well-documented taste for pornography."
He's not "guilty" of anything. We're all Internet users here, the odds suggest that many of us have a taste for porn as well. I was simply noting that there's a factual basis for what I still see as a cheap shot by Dowd.
Thomas is as qualified as Souter (unless you consider the New Hampshire Supreme Court a huge qualification for the highest federal court in the land).
Yeah, if you ignore the fact that Souter spent over a decade on his state's highest court, his resume does look a little thin. I guess I just disagree with you that state supreme court experience is irrelevant. Maura Corrigan seems to be a favorite of many conservatives whenever a Supreme Court vacancy comes around, and I certainly don't see her as unqualified.
I wasn't joking when I said, above, that I thought Justice Thomas helped make an excellent case for affirmative action. Affirmative action, both formal and informal, gave him a number of opportunities, and he's taken advantage of those opportunities to show that he's every bit as suited to be a Supreme Court Justice as his colleagues are. If Clarence Thomas hadn't been black, there's every reason to think his resume between law school and the Supreme Court could have been much more impressive; thus I question the extent to which it can be held against him.
Consider the example of William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated together at the top of their class at Stanford. Rehnquist got a prestigious Supreme Court clerkship after graduation, and went on to a variety of prestigious jobs in the Nixon Administration. O'Connor, on the other hand, famously got only one job offer after graduation - to work as a legal secretary - and ended up working as a county attorney and serving in the state legislature. Her experience as a judge was limited to four years in a state trial court and two years in an intermediate appellate court.
That's not to say that Justice O'Connor will go down as the greatest Supreme Court Justice in history, but simply to note that you can't hold it against her that she had a lesser resume than Rehnquist, considering the biases she had to deal with in the legal profession at the time. Had she been born a man, she could very well have had his resume or better. And none of this is to argue that we should run around looking for unqualified minorities to appoint to the Supreme Court in hopes that they'll be good; I just think people should recognize that when a minority candidate doesn't have as impressive a background as a white male candidate who had all the advantages, the lack of a resume may not be all their fault, and it may not indicate a lack of intellectual chops.
I remember those columns well. Enjoyed them greatly. I wonder if we were back in those times, when Clinton was fighting impeachment, rather than the present, would Dowd be less reviled here. And call it team loyalty if you will, but William Safire, no Lefty, seemed genuinely fond of his officemate.
Did you read any of Ann Coulter's columns when Miers was nominated? She does not hesitate to let loose on Republicans when they deserve it.
The Supreme Court's ending this charade was reasonable under the circumstances, especially because the tabulation process the Democrats wanted ended up taking months. And, although I'm sure that, once Clinton's and Gore's term ended, Speaker Hastert as next-in-line would have done a creditable job as President, the interim nature of his presidency would have made the U.S. look weak.
i couldn't agree more. modo's column was overtly racist in more than one place. her usual shtick in these types of pieces (meaning ones where she pretends to be inside the head of some politician) is like a written-word version of caricature. sometimes it's funny, precisely because of the obvious exaggeration involved (she's particularly good at lampooning vp cheney). sometimes it falls flat. this time it never should have been done. she ought to be ashamed; when i read it, i was aghast. i'm glad you made this point.
i have a related question. it's a sincere one, as i really don't know the answer: did you write about bill o'reilly's various racist comments related to his dinner with sharpton in harlem? if you did, i'd love to see the link. if not, i'm curious why not, as the comments were widely publicized and came from someone who is arguably (maybe even almost certainly) more influential on the right than modo is on the left (at least some liberals i know think her column is tired and well past its use, even before this incident).
i don't think you have an obligation to write about all racist incidents. but you recently suggested to me that i might not be "listening hard enough" to all those cases of anti-conservative/-libertarian bias in econ departments. so i'm curious as to how hard you listen to, and how loudly you denounce, bigoted talk from the right. i'm not being sarcastic when i say that i will be delighted to find out that your outrage is equal-opportunity. (mine definitely is.)
j
Let´s remember that what´s decided the fate of Robert Bork were the Southern Democrats, somekind conservative politicians that time depended on the black vote to be elected. Most of these democrats that refused Bork(That was accused of racial insensitivity) endorsed Thomas. Had at that time Chuck Robb, Wyche Fowler and Richard Shelby refused to endorse Thomas and his confirmation would be rejected.
Souter may have a poor resumé, but Thomas had a even poorer one. And senators at that time were impressed with Souter, but not with Thomas. And Thomas divisive personality is not what the Court needs. He is a rightwing version of Brennan or Abe Fortas. But since he is black, no one criticizes him. And everyone that does is labeled as a racist. The right knows to use the race card so well as the left.
And yes, he shows the dangers of affirmative action.
But, I agree that some of Dowd's remarks --especially "The Man" comment but maybe the "carjack" remark-- were offensive. While one could argue that the "carjack" reference is race neutral and that any reader who sees it as related to African Americans is revealing more about his own biases than those of Dowd, I do think "The Man" is a term associated with African Americans and for her to use it in this fashion is to make Thomas engage in "black speak" that is inappropriate (unless you know he uses in his casual speach).
I think the "not qualified" and "X-rated tingle" remarks are fair game for a columnist. While I think Thomas has shown himself to be qualified since he assumed the Supreme Court, he had only been on the DC Circuit for one year, and had no prior judicial experience before taking that post, when he was nominated. I would have judged him "qualified" but not "well qualified" which is what the ABA did (I think), but I can see the argument that he was not qualified when he was appointed.
I don't think one of the poster's comparison of Thomas to Souter is apt. Souter was on the New Hampshire Supreme Court for 10 years, and his opinions on that court showed that he was well qualified. I find it mystifying that someone would discount that experience.
By the way, even though I am fairly liberal, I bought Thomas' book, and find it very interesting. I think he writes pretty well, and his life experience is fascinating.
George H.W. Bush picked Thomas to replace Marshall the same way George W. Bush picked Roberts to replace Rehnquist. The chief difference was that Roberts was on the D.C. Court of Appeals longer than Thomas was. Replacing Marshall with a non-black would have seemed a step backwards.
Thurgood Marshall was a leading Supreme Court advocate during the middle third of the twentieth century--the field general of the litigation component of the movement for civil rights and racial equality. He subsequently served as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, and as Solicitor General--the third ranking position at the Department of Justice--at the time of his nomination to the Supreme Court.
Since Justice Marshall's appointment, seven presidents have submitted twenty-one nominees for forteen Supreme Court vacancies. For thirteen of those vacancies and twenty of those nominees, no black person appears to have received serious, "short list" consideration. In other words, blacks need not have applied to succeed to any seat not vacated by the resignation or death of a white justice.
Clarence Thomas had moved up through the Republican ranks by being a toady, first to John Danforth and then to George Herbert Walker Bush. Because of affirmative action, Judge Thomas was nominated to succeed a civil rights giant, whose briefcase Thomas would have been unworthy to tote. When his confirmation was in doubt, however, Clarence Uncle Thomas was quick to play the race card--invoking the spectre of lynching--when all he was accused of was trash talking to another member of his own race and boasting of the size of his appendage, and all he had at risk was the denial of a promotion within the judicial ranks. A "high-tech lynching", indeed!
Abe Fortas' elevation to Chief Justice was filibustered; Fortas was not lynched. Clement Haynesworth, G. Harold Carswell and Robert Bork lost confirmation votes in the Senate. They were not lynched. Douglas Ginsburg and Harriet Meirs withdrew their names from consideration prior to Senate action; neither was lynched.
As a justice, Clarence Thomas has been mediocre. As a man, he is quite loathsome.
"So what if he is mediocre? There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters and stuff like that there Sen. Hruska regarding Carswell's nomination.
Character assassination is one of Dowd's stock in trade. She kills with a stiletto.
Yeah, noone ever criticizes Thomas. All one has to do is look at the all out assault on Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg to realize that Thomas, the one who shalt not be criticized gets it so easy because he is black.
Saying that the most criticized justice is never criticized is not a good way to gain credibility.
As far as Souter's qualifications, I do not think the job of State Supreme Court Justice has much to do with U.S. Supreme Court Justice. State SC's do not see a lot of federal constitutional issues. State constitution's vary greatly in content. State court's are courts of general jurisdiction and spend lots of time on common law issues and abuse of discretion type decisions.
I do not care if Senators are impressed or not. Senators are, as a whole, stupid.
Are you serious? Please remove the wax from your ears and the scales from your eyes. Thomas is the subject of frequent criticism and attack.
But before I was able to post the question above, you stated that Thomas is... So... which is it? Is Clarence Thomas qualified to be a Justice, or not? And if not, why not? What are those non-trivial facts?
Finally, ANDKEN states:Huh? Have you been reading this thread? Did you watch the Senate's confirmation hearing? Did you read the MoDo column here? Or anything for the past 15+ years? Clarence Thomas has been subjected to non-stop criticism from the Left ever since the day he was appointed -- criticism which, if it had come from conservatives, would have been pointed out by the same Left along with their incessant and hypocritical screams of "Racists!!"
Sorry, I´m was not clear enough: no one criticizes him for his *qualifications*. Most of the criticism that he receives is political. And as this thread shows, people needs to use race to defend him.
And as I said, everyone that criticizes him is racist. What I´m pointing out is that Americans they can´t manage to have a , uh, normal relation with black justices.
I think that Obama shows that too. Few people dare to criticizes him, and the left is quick to use the race card to defend him.
And yes, I think that Souter is a mediocre judge. But, by the way, with the exception of the dissent on Raich, where is a good and memorable opinion that Thomas wrote?
I picture snot coming out of MoDo's nose from her guffawing evertime she types "Poppy".
An honest person who owed such a personal debt to the Bush family would have recused himself in Bush v. Gore rather than joining in with the rest of the wardheelers who anointed the doofus.
I read Supreme Court opinions for a living, and I'd have a hard time coming up with "memorable opinions" that are also good (i.e., not memorable for their atrocious reasoning, hypocrisy, inconsistency, emotionalism etc.) by any Justice, save maybe Scalia. What is a "memorable" Ruth Ginsburg opinion? Breyer opinion?
What relevance to Thomas's fitness for the Supreme Court did a couple of off-hand remarks Thomas might have made a decade previously have? This dredging up and blowing up out of all proportion of something no normal person would have thought twice about was just another way to keep a black man down, to intimidate him and keep him from seeking higher office, just as if someone had knotted a noose and attached it to his office door.
I bet coulter has said plenty of bad stuff about the bush's regarding immigration and suck
Assuming for the sake of argument that your premise is correct, how does this distinguish him from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Julian Bond? Based on that, Libs should love him.
I mean, c'mon, the "MX Pentagon" was clearly not serious.
What's hilarious is Modo's often claimed that she and "Poppy" have a special relationship—one smoldering with sexual tension. According to her they're like two leads in a Forties' romantic comedy: he's the posh patrician bored with his wife, she's the sexy Irish serving wench he craves.
Re: Bush v. Gore -
"If the Court's majority believed that it had the power to influence the outcome, and if one or more Justices voted (based on that belief) not their convictions, but rather their preferred [outcome], then it's still worthy of recognition as one of the lowest depths to which the judiciary has sunk in recent memory."
Huh?? This is typical behavior that the Court engages in every day on every issue. What Justice doesn't believe that it has the power to influence an outcome if they can convince a majority of fellow Justices? And what issue's decision ISN'T influenced by their own "prefered outcome"? This is what goes on all the time, regardless of which Justices happen to be in the majority at any given time. To say the Bush v. Gore was somehow different exposes a great amount of naivate.
If Thomas has a taste for pornography, then all I can say is that I now have something in common with the man other than we each have law degrees.
Let's see, blacks make up 13% of the US population and 11% of the Supreme Court. Are you implying that you think there are so many more qualified black potential justices that maybe they should make up 22% or 33% of the court? We still need room for a Hispanic and an Asian.
O'Reilly isn't a conservative -- he's a blustery, loud-mouthed populist. Ann Coulter, who someone described above as a right-wing equivalent of MoDo, is the better comparison - and she is more serious than he is, because she's much smarter.
For that matter, name any person who was lynched for being accused of talking trash to a black woman and making (possibly) exaggerated claims about the size of his johnson.
Now that Mr. Thomas has trashed Ms. Hill in a forum outside the comfy confines of witness imunity and judicial immunity, here's hoping she drags his lying, "lynched" ass before a jury for libel. Under the single publication rule, she now has her choice of any judicial district in the nation.
And people who want to pretend to care about civil rights -- particularly white people -- should probably avoid racist spewing, even if the target is a black conservative.
“Imagine Ann Coulter saying anything bad about the Bushes!”
How about: “Maybe he [GWB] is an idiot.” Or perhaps
“At least President Clinton only allowed his wife to choose the attorney general.”
Then there is: “First, Bush has no right to say "Trust me." He was elected to represent the American people, not to be dictator for eight years.”
Source: Ann Coulter’s own archive of her columns.
What's the deal, man? Do his negroid features scare you or something? This "good massa" mentality of white liberals (especially lawyers) is something to behold.
Obviously, Mr. Herbison is unfamiliar with the concept of metaphor (at least when it suits his purposes).
At the time Justice Thomas made the "high-tech lynching" remark, I found it a bit too hyperbolic, but in hindsight, it was perfectly apt. A lynching is more than an act of homicide--it is also an act of intimidation, i.e., "This is what we'll do to you too." Thus, Justice Thomas' point was that the televised smear campaign was nothing more than an attempt to both kill his reputation and intimidate any like-minded black judges/political nominees from pursuing a similar career path.
Well, those who owed debts to the Clinton/Gore presidency should have recused themselves, too, correct?
Aside from Robert Bork?