Before many of my undergraduate students were born, the 1st President Bush told the nation he was doing a great thing. He was appointing Clarence Thomas an African American to the Supreme Court. It was a great day for the nation for those who didn't know any better. Now that two decades have past - I'm sure that the previous African American Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall is rolling in his grave at the thought of Thomas on the court.
Bush's appointment, Clarence Thomas was dark enough, no one could question his ethnicity - yet he certainly did not have a sense of identity that would help balance the court. He was what some people call an "oreo" (black on the outside, white on the inside ) - Thomas did not care about the needs of other blacks. He seemed (and continues) to harbor a sense of self hate.
It is also clear that he is not a competent judge. For the past 5 years he has not said one thing during the oral arguments.of the court's cases. This is an abomination.
When Bush appointed Thomas, the president thought the country's minorities would be happy to have a representative on the court. Bush did not care about qualifications. For those who really know the history of that administration, the history of the Willie Horton Incident kept them from ever thinking Bush had any reasonable ideas about American's blacks.
All this brings to mind the issue of the need to seek diversity by appointing competent individuals. An insidious system can hire an incompetent minority - become unhappy with their performance, which then gives the administrators an excuse to say that Affirmative Action is bad for the company (or court in this case).
Another instance of this type of back door racism was the hiring of Albert/Alberto Gonzales to the job of U.S. Attorney General. Gonzales set back Latinos lawyers several generations....
Hiring smart is what is necessary. And unfortunately sometimes that means saying no to a minority applicant, just as it could mean saying no to the son of an influential donor. Competency is the issue.
p.s. I am for Affirmative Action - what I'm saying is that Bush could have looked and found a much more competent Supreme Court Justice when he appointed Thomas.... But seems like Bush only wanted a man of color, not a competent Judge.
---
No Argument: Thomas Keeps 5-Year Silence
By ADAM LIPTAK
New York Times
Justice Clarence Thomas has given various reasons for declining to participate in oral arguments.
Related in Opinion
Noah Feldman: Sometimes, Justice Can Play Politics (February 13, 2011)
A week from Tuesday, when the Supreme Court returns from its midwinter break and hears arguments in two criminal cases, it will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas has spoken during a court argument.
If he is true to form, Justice Thomas will spend the arguments as he always does: leaning back in his chair, staring at the ceiling, rubbing his eyes, whispering to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, consulting papers and looking a little irritated and a little bored. He will ask no questions.
In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term, much less five, without speaking at least once during arguments, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. Justice Thomas’s epic silence on the bench is just one part of his enigmatic and contradictory persona. He is guarded in public but gregarious in private. He avoids elite universities but speaks frequently to students at regional and religious schools. In those settings, he rarely dwells on legal topics but is happy to discuss a favorite movie, like “Saving Private Ryan.” ...more
If he is true to form, Justice Thomas will spend the arguments as he always does: leaning back in his chair, staring at the ceiling, rubbing his eyes, whispering to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, consulting papers and looking a little irritated and a little bored. He will ask no questions.
In the past 40 years, no other justice has gone an entire term, much less five, without speaking at least once during arguments, according to Timothy R. Johnson, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. Justice Thomas’s epic silence on the bench is just one part of his enigmatic and contradictory persona. He is guarded in public but gregarious in private. He avoids elite universities but speaks frequently to students at regional and religious schools. In those settings, he rarely dwells on legal topics but is happy to discuss a favorite movie, like “Saving Private Ryan.” ...more
No comments:
Post a Comment