Antonin Scalia

Django Unchained and the Latest Liberal Smear Against Clarence Thomas

|

In Django Unchained, Quentin Tarantino's bloody new spaghetti western set in the pre-Civil War American South, Samuel L. Jackson portrays the despicable character of Stephen, the head house slave at a hellish Mississippi plantation. Without giving too much of the story away, suffice it to say Stephen emerges as one of the main enemies our hero Django, in a great performance by Jamie Foxx, must defeat while attempting to liberate his wife from bondage.

Reviewing the film for the Boston Globe, liberal critic Wesley Morris struggles to convey the villainy of Stephen's character, turning to a present-day comparison for help. "The movie is too modern for what Jackson is doing to be limited to 1858," Morris writes. "He's conjuring the house Negro, yes, but playing him as though he were Clarence Thomas… [a man who] some black people find embarrassing."

I realize that liberals like Morris have been saying all sorts of stupid things about Clarence Thomas for many years now—including the demonstrably false notion that Thomas is some sort of puppet of Justice Antonin Scalia (The New York Times once described Scalia as Thomas' "apparent mentor") when in fact Thomas is the one who has had an influence on Scalia's legal approach—but the cheapshot comparison here with Django's slave power system is particularly contemptible.

Morris may be too uninformed to know it, but the fact is no Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall has written more frequently or powerfully about American racism than Thomas.

Consider his role in the 2003 case Virginia v. Black, which centered on a state law criminalizing the act of cross-burning when done "with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons." While most of his colleagues seemed content during oral argument to view the case solely through the lens of First Amendment law, Thomas took a different view. The 1952 cross-burning act was intended to counteract "almost 100 years of lynching and activity in the South" by the Ku Klux Klan and other groups, he reminded the courtroom. "This was a reign of terror and the cross was a symbol of that reign of terror."

Several months later, in a lone dissent, Thomas went further, arguing that cross-burning was part and parcel of racist terrorism and therefore deserved no protection under the First Amendment. "Those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point," he wrote.

It was not an opinion designed to warm the hearts of free speech absolutists, to be sure. But that doesn't disqualify it from the civil rights tradition. Nor would it be the last time Thomas offered a history lesson about race in America.

In 2010, for example, after the Supreme Court struck down certain campaign finance restrictions in Citizens United v. F.E.C., the majority in that case came under intense criticism from various liberal groups for harboring an alleged pro-corporate bias. In response, Thomas reminded champions of campaign finance regulation that their cause was not exactly squeaky clean.

"Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation," Thomas told an audience at Stetson University College of Law, referring to the Tillman Act of 1907, one of the earliest federal campaign finance regulations, sponsored by Sen. Benjamin Tillman, a leading Southern progressive and notorious white supremacist. "Tillman was from South Carolina," Thomas continued, "and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them."

But that verbal jab is nothing compared to Thomas' contribution to the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies against state and local governments via the 14th Amendment.

In his concurring opinion in that case, Thomas once again reached for the history books, this time tracing the 14th Amendment's origins to the antislavery movement and to the efforts of the Radical Republicans of the 39th Congress, who sought to force the former Confederate states to respect fundamental rights after the Civil War—including the right to keep and bear arms, a provision of particular importance to the recently freed slaves, who were now facing the South's incipient Jim Crow regime.

That focus on black history even earned Thomas a rare compliment from liberal Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy, who marveled, "His advocacy for black self-defense is straight from the heart of Malcolm X," while likening the opinion to "a mix of black history lesson and Black Panther Party manifesto." Milloy's sentiment was accurate, though he should have reached further back for the comparison. Thomas' advocacy for black self-defense came straight from the heart of Frederick Douglass, whose writings Thomas repeatedly cited in the McDonald opinion. "The liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box," Douglass once wrote. "Without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country."

Which brings us back to Wesley Morris' Django review. Had Morris bothered to glance at Thomas' jurisprudence, rather than opting for a lazy and ignorant smear, he would have discovered a writer whose work is steeped in African American history, and who grapples repeatedly with the long shadows cast by slavery and Jim Crow. Clarence Thomas may not qualify as a modern liberal, but there is no question he remains part of a civil rights tradition that started with Frederick Douglass.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Troops Out of Afghanistan by 2014?, NYC Waiving Inspection Fees, Hiking Business Taxes, Glenn Beck Relaunching The Blaze as a Libertarian News Network

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It doesn’t matter what Thomas is actually like. All that matters is the liberal charicature of Thomas.

    1. ^This, a thousand times this.

  2. …when in fact Thomas is the one who has had an influence on Scalia’s legal approach…

    I’m guessing that statement wouldn’t be viewed as a positive, either.

    1. Considering some of Scalia’s recent rulings, I’m not sure it should be viewed as a positive.

  3. It’s a lesson to any other african american who might be considering departing from the Left.

    1. Sometimes you have to crack the whip to herd the sheep.

    2. That’s really what it is all about. These Uncle Tom comparisons have nothing to do with race and everything to do with keeping black people in line. If you don’t tow the leftist, communist dogma lion, you are an outcast. It’s sad that after years of having white people tell them what to do and say and they are now free to do and say as they please that the left has so many black people determined to keep other blacks from enjoying that freedom using peer pressure. I do think a lot of people are now starting to see through this con game.

  4. I find many black people embarrassing. I’m sure blacks find many white people and Asian people embarrassing. The attacks on Justice Thomas are usually embarrassing as they are not based on a consideration of his judicial views.

    1. You could only compare Clarance Tomas to Stephen of (A) you havn’t actually watched the movie , or (B) you’re so blinded by your own partisan dogma that you actively and passionately hate anyone who disagrees with you and you can’t bear the thought of a black person not belonging to the correct political party.

      1. (A) you haven’t actually watched the movie

        This is obvious truth. Having seen the movie, I can’t imagine how anyone could complain (except for Tarantino’s overdone violence, of course). Except for a handful of characters, everyone in the movie is depicted as stupid, useless or downright evil. The most moral characters are the two bounty hunters. Jamie Foxx’s character is a classic Sigfried, and Christoph Waltz is Jiminy Cricket as Django is growing into a real hero.

      2. When slavery was prevalent, Blacks were expected to behave as they were told and not get uppity. Now, they are not only expected to behave correctly, but to believe correctly. Has so much really changed?

  5. “Morris may be too uninformed to know it”

    It goes far beyond being uninformed. People like Morris avert their eyes from the evidence in front of them, avoiding any risk of obvious facts getting in the way of their narrative.

    1. People like Morris avert their eyes from the evidence in front of them, avoiding any risk of obvious facts getting in the way of their narrative.

      Bravo, sir. I came here to say exactly that, but almost certainly not so well.

    2. Morris is not uninformed, at least not by choice. He is following a narrative, that a black like Thomas who has left the liberal plantation is no better than the house nigger – and let’s feign offense here, that is exactly how folks like the Justice are referred to by detractors.

      The left tries similar smears against the likes of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams but rarely, if ever, engages them in substantive dialogue because their stupidity is too easily exposed that way.

      1. Stephen isn’t just ANY “house nigger”, he’s a loathsome self-hating creature who actively hates his fellow slaves and helps enforce the plantation master’s rule.

        The only way the comparison makes any sense is if you’re one of those leftists who honestly thinks that society is all a big capitalist conspiracy to enslave the proletariat, and Thomas is some sort of venal willing agent who enjoys helping “The Man” enforce his oppression of poor blacks.

        1. This is exactly right, and frankly we owe Morris our gratitude for stating it outright. No hedge words like “token” for him, no sir. Black conservatives are vile embarrassments who help their white masters oppress their own people, full stop.

          1. I believe he even cheered when RG3 tore his ACL. Then again, we know not Russell Wilson’s political leanings…

          2. One thing everyone needs to remember, both left and right, is Clarence Thomas was raised in a home where his Grand parents were self-made people and did not anyone anything. They lived a rather humble life in pre-reform South, but the only people to who his grandparents were responsible to were the State and his business expenses. No employer, no mortgagee, no debts; Clarence comes from a home where liberty and responsibility were the foundations of family life. It is a true testament to the nature v. nurture argument.

        2. The only way the comparison makes any sense is if you’re one of those leftists who honestly thinks that society is all a big capitalist conspiracy to enslave the proletariat, and Thomas is some sort of venal willing agent who enjoys helping “The Man” enforce his oppression of poor blacks.

          I don’t know why you said “one of those leftists”. That pretty much defines them.

    3. It goes far beyond being uninformed.

      …”it’s that they know so much that isn’t true.”

    4. I think people like Morris know exactly what they’re doing which is what makes it particulary despicable.

  6. I love how fervantly anti-racist liberals are completely unaware how fervantly racist they are. Any black man that comes to his own conclusions, as opposed to some pre-conceived beliefs, is automatically an Uncle Tom.

    1. I’m pretty sure they just define racism differently than you do.

      1. We define it, in part, as classifying a whole race as lazy and entitled, as you did a few posts down.

        1. your actions paint you as racists then, since your 50 years of condescension toward blacks as no more than children at best and animals at worst, unable to make do for themselves without the hand of govt has yielded totally foreseeable consequences.

          Black rates of out of wedlock birth, high school dropouts, and incarceration were nowhere near as out of whack with the population as a whole before the left provided its special brand of help.

          1. Black rates of out of wedlock birth, high school dropouts, and incarceration were nowhere near as out of whack with the population as a whole before the left provided its special brand of help.

            ‘T o n y’ blames all of those things on evul, rethuglican racists. Becuase he is just a sockpuppet trolling everyone.

          2. There’s one little problem with your narrative: blacks consistently vote nearly unanimously for Democrats who you claim are treating them as children and animals. Try to explain that without condescending to blacks and treating them as too stupid to know what’s good for them.

            1. Easy. Whites fall for it too when they’re specifically targeted by a socialist propaganda machine. That’s why there’s so many of you out there.

              1. But why do half of the whites manage to escape the propaganda but almost no blacks and, increasingly, few Latinos are able to?

                1. Whites are not specifically targeted at a racial level.

            2. This is a guy, btw, who thinks white people vote Republican against their own economic interests purely for racial reasons.

              It’s impossible to even parody this level of self-caricature.

        2. No you don’t Tony. Buy supporting affirmative action, all liberals are buying into just that mindset. The idea that blacks are incapable of competing with whites without help from benevolent white people is part and parcel to pretty much everything liberals think about race.

          You Tony are one of the most racist commentators on here.

          1. I’m not in favor of race-based affirmative action, but you are mischaracterizing its justification. It’s not about treating racial minorities as needing a leg up because they are inherently less capable, but because they have suffered a history of discrimination and have to unfairly work a lot harder than white people to achieve the same successes.

            1. but because they have suffered a history of discrimination and have to unfairly work a lot harder than white people to achieve the same successes.

              Which is another way of saying they are inferior especially when other groups such as Asians who were also subjected to discrimination are not given such benefits.

              Any white person who supports race based affirmative action is a white supremacist plain and simple.

              1. Are you claiming that Asians have been excluded from diversity and affirmative action programs?

                While Asian immigrants have been mistreated in the past, it’s not exactly comparable to the history of “native” blacks. Asian immigrants who get college degrees disproportionately have parents with college degrees. Recent Asian immigrants benefit from self-selection. Native blacks are still living with the legacy of discrimination that has passed down through generations–a black youth trying to go to college is much less likely to have parents with college degrees or financial resources. It’s complicated, but I doubt you are able to offer a useful explanation for the relatively poor metrics of American blacks that doesn’t, at some point, invoke racism.

                And your last claim is actually funny in its absurdity. I’ll have to go talk to some skinheads and KKK members to get their views on race-based affirmative action.

                1. It’s complicated, but I doubt you are able to offer a useful explanation for the relatively poor metrics of American blacks that doesn’t, at some point, invoke racism.

                  It’s a combination of IQ and, more lately, preferential treatment that destroys the incentive to succeed.

                  Neither of those is racist.

                  1. Saying blacks have lower IQs isn’t racist?

                    1. In my book, facts can’t be racist. I define racism this way: Blinding yourself to facts/impressions about an individual because of facts/impressions about their their race.

                2. “Native blacks are still living with the legacy of discrimination that has passed down through generations”

                  No. No they’re not.

                  Fucking racist.

                3. the history of “native” blacks

                  Ah. So, you only want affirmative action for “native” blacks, not for immigrants from Africa, Haiti, Jamaica, etc., who came here afterwards. This should really mean only those blacks who had an ancestor who was a slave in this country in the 18th century. Otherwise, you’d be saying we need to treat people differently solely based on the color of their skin, which is how it usually comes across.

                  1. Some pinkos have retreated from supporting raced-based AA, proposing to replace it with preferences for lower income people of all colors.

                    That would mean no preferences for Ivy Blue Carter, but some “white trash” kid could get them. If the underprivileged Caucasian is male, some feminists might not like that, though.

                    I’ll let Caesar Antonius pipe in if this represents his view.

                    The Grutter and Fisher cases still allow race as 1 factor among many in college admissions @ state Us. I think we should be past that, now.

                    Kevin R

                    now

        3. I said they were socialists (and not the whole race, either. Clarence Thomas is clearly not a socialist, which is exactly why you people call him an Uncle Tom). You’re the one who jumped to the conclusion that socialism is rooted in laziness. It’s an interesting point, though. I’ll consider it.

    2. I love how fervantly anti-racist liberals are completely unaware how fervantly racist they are.

      They never stop to consider the implications of all the racist dog-whistles they supposedly hear.

      1. Well, obviously, if you hear the whistle, you’re the dog.

  7. Samuel L. Jackson played the character Stephen as an evil bastard whose sole motivation was to make sure Stephen was safe and warm in the house. Bringing Clarence Thomas into the conversation is straight up racist. It’s a fucking movie for fuck sake. Fuck!

    1. and so, the liberal conundrum reveals itself, doesn’t it. The “evil bastard” of days of old needs a current face and what better mascot for the left to deploy than Thomas, the type of individual who puts the lie to the left’s entire philosophy.

    2. And beyond that, it is pretty fucking disgusting to cast moral aspirations against people who make difficult choices under impossible circumstances. Unless you have actually been a slave, you have no idea how you would act. My guess is most people would cover their own asses and do exactly what Stephen does in the movie.

    3. It’s called pandering to your demographic. Media buffoons do it more than politicians do.

      1. Let’s not forget about Liberia’s History and how a bunch of freedmen enslaved the natives. This is akin to John Stossel being elected dictator and implementing socialism instead of the benign neglect that he once praised.

  8. A black is not really a black unless they agree with a liberal.

    A woman is not really a woman unless they agree with a liberal.

    etc, etc.

    1. “A black is not really a black unless they agree with a liberal are socialists.”

      FIFY.

      Black opinion deviates from liberals on a wide variety of issues (gay marriage?). What unites them is the idea that they’re entitled to the product of other people’s labor.

      1. It’s amazing how someone’s skin color can be determinative of his level of laziness and sense of entitlement.

        1. The fact you read “laziness” in that post where there was no reference or even allusion to laziness whatsoever reveals a lot about you.

          1. You’re concerned with me when KPres’s post was obviously ugly and racist?

            1. Socialism is ugly and usually racist. You got that part right, at least.

              1. Socialism needs racism to survive for if everyone is equal and with the same opportunities to better them selves then what need would there be for socialism to provide for those who can’t. This is why all socialist nations find a group to say can’t provide for themselves and when people ask why can’t they, then the socialist blames a another group for their problems hence racisism and just about every socialist nation ends up with a massive upheaval by destroying certain groups. Examples are the Jews in Nazi Germany or the Educators in China or now the Capitalist in America.

                1. You’re describing far right and/or authoritarian movements, not socialism, which, at least the version I support, is doing quite well supporting the most livable and happy countries on earth.

                  It’s far right/authoritarian regimes that target racial minorities and academics as scapegoats. And who in this country tends to do that sort of thing?

                  1. “And who in this country tends to do that sort of thing?”

                    Unions.

                  2. “You’re describing far right and/or authoritarian movements, not socialism”

                    Socialism is authoritarianism; the two are inseparable. And “far right” is it’s opposite. The kind of Rebublican you’re targeting in this attack is a centrist who has most in common with a blue-dog Democrat.

  9. Morris may be too uninformed to know it, but the fact is no Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall has written more frequently or powerfully about American racism than Thomas.

    You presume that the proglodytes are concerned with pesky things, like reality.

    1. “proglodytes”

      Awesome! There is my new word of the day for Wednesday, January 9th.

      1. you’re new here i see

  10. And no justice other than Marshall has ever suffered the personal tragedy of racism the way Thomas has.

  11. Clarence Thomas… [a man who] RIGHT THINKING WHITE LIBERALS find embarrassing BECAUSE HE FAILS TO CARRY WATER FOR OUR IDEOLOGICAL NARRATIVE”

    fixed it

  12. I wonder if lefties ever feel shame about their attempts to pathologize people who hold differing opinions.

    1. Shame??!!

      They’re DOING THEM A FAVOR!! they are demonstrating their solidarity with inferiors by HELPING THEM HOW TO THINK!!

      1. They are freeing them from the slavery of false consciousness.

        1. How you can learn, understand, and even properly use in context their bullshit language without having a fucking brain aneurysm is beyond me.

          1. He works at a university.

  13. The problem is he can perceive an exception to the First Amendment–which contains no textual exceptions–when it comes to cross burning, and can call for the Court to intervene, but when it comes to the immediate, bodily civil rights of other groups such as gays who want to have sex or not be discriminated against in the workplace, women who need/want abortions, or non-Christians who want to be free from government support of religion, it’s open season for state and local legislatures.

    Thomas like Scalia suffers from one of the main perils of dogmatism: you can’t ever be consistent enough not to eventually be a hypocrite. Scalia at least talks a good game on his judicial philosophy, however much he undermines it time after time in his opinions. Thomas’s simply appears to be totally divorced from the reality the legal landscape of which he is one of only nine arbiters.

    1. The great thing about being unprincipled is that it becomes impossible to be a hypocrite?

      1. The opposite of dogmatic is not unprincipled.

        1. Antonyms of dogmatic:

          amenable, doubting, flexible, indecisive, manageable, obedient, questioning, skeptical, submissive

          I mean, fuck off, sockpuppet!

    2. on gay marriage, Thomas is like 99% of blacks – he is against it. Yet, the rest are given a pass because they stay on the liberal plantation because of their fondness for govt largesse.

      1. Actually a majority of blacks now support same-sex marriage, their views having evolved even more rapidly than the general population’s.

        1. Then explain this to me…

          http://www.loop21.com/life/pol…..y-marriage

          “A little more than half — 51 percent — of Blacks surveyed said they didn’t support same-sex marriage, compared to Whites (47 percent), Hispanics (45 percent) and non-whites in general (45 percent). Blacks’ opposition to gay marriage came in 4 points higher than opposition to gay marriage in the nation overall (47 percent).”

          1. I have a counter-link: http://www.sfgate.com/nation/a…..047234.php.

            The claim was that 99% of blacks are against same-sex marriage, which both of our links show is extremely false.

            But I do love this conversation, which can be entirely summed up as “Maybe if we appeal to blacks’ bigotry, we can get some of them to vote for our economic policies!” Good luck with that, uh, strategy.

            1. “The claim was that 99% of blacks are against same-sex marriage”

              Yes and it was obviously hyperbole. He no doubt chose a ridiculously large 99% so that no normal human with a functioning brain could conceivably be so stupid that they take it literally. I suppose he didn’t count on you showing up in this thread.

            2. I have a counter-link:

              My poll is better than yours (my data is always better than yours) because they polled the general population, whereas yours was just an exit poll (meaning selection bias).

        2. Then explain the demographics of California’s Prop 8 vote. The overwhelming majority of blacks voted for it, so much so that without the their vote it would have lost.

    3. So you think Thomas would be less like Stephen if he was MORE of a “go along to get along” sort of man?

      1. Zing!

    4. The problem is he can perceive an exception to the First Amendment–which contains no textual exceptions-

      So if an amendment contains no textual exceptions, then there can be no restrictions based on any exceptions? I guess we can end this talk of “common sense regulations” then.

      Scalia at least talks a good game on his judicial philosophy

      No he doesn’t.

      And while Thomas isn’t always consistent, he’s a hell of a lot more consistent than Scalia, who is the worst Justice on the court since Souter left.

      1. Scalia frames his judicial philosophy, such as it is, in terms of democracy. As in, if the constitution doesn’t prohibit a jurisdiction from making a law, such as one banning sodomy, then the ideals of freedom and democracy require us not to restrict people in those jurisdictions from making the rules they want to make. I find his explanation of his principles actually appealing on some level. But with Scalia it’s all talk–he then goes on to vote for whatever the Republican party platform is regardless.

        1. But with Scalia it’s all talk–he then goes on to vote for whatever the Republican party platform is regardless.

          Like in Hamdi vs Rumsfeld?

          Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent, joined by Justice John Paul Stevens, went the furthest in restricting the Executive power of detention. Scalia asserted that based on historical precedent, the government had only two options to detain Hamdi: either Congress must suspend the right to habeas corpus, or Hamdi must be tried under normal criminal law. Scalia wrote that the plurality, though well-meaning, had no basis in law for trying to establish new procedures that would be applicable in a challenge to Hamdi’s detention?it was only the job of the Court to declare it unconstitutional and order his release or proper arrest, rather than to invent an acceptable process for detention.

    5. “The problem is he can perceive an exception to the First Amendment–which contains no textual exceptions–when it comes to cross burning or yelling FIRE in a crowded theater.

    6. That could be because your analogy is comparing speech rights with bodily civil rights, which are covered by entirely separate laws.

      Also, Thomas called Texas’ anti-sodomy law “uncommonly silly” – he refused to intervene because he didn’t see a federal justification for doing so. The constitution being light on verbiage about anal sex and reserving non-enumerated powers to the states, and all.

  14. The character Stephen is creepy as shit and made my skin crawl. And I’m not even black.

    And yes, it disgusting and represhensible to compare any black person to him just on the basis of a political disagreement. I hate people who pull that kind of shit. It’s worse than comparing someone to Hitler because Hitler has become such a cliche.

    Stephen is so utterly loathsome that I’m suprised they convinced a black person to portray him. He’s the epitome of the self-hating servile house slave, despite privately having the ear of the master, he publicly displays his contempt for the slaves on the plantation and considers his own race so unclean he offers to burn the sheets that a free black man sleeps on.

    Really, he’s so vile that comparing someone to him could only be justified by the blackest hatred. Which shows what ugly poisoned hearts some people have. You don’t make those kind of comparisons on the basis of an intellecual disagreement. You would only do it if you truly and deeply hated him to the core of your being. And Thomas has done nothing to deserve that kind of hate.

    1. Samuel L. Jackson really crawled inside of the skin of Stephen. Great movie. Tarantino is in fine form. I hope Tarantino whips out a couple more movies quickly right now, because he is “in the zone”.

  15. This article was fucking stupid, just wasted 5 mins of my life.

    1. It’s not like you had anything better to do…

      1. He’s late for a pinball tournament.

        1. I was waiting for that one, usually I hear a tommygunz! or tommyboy or, during the fall holidays, tommyturkey. And now I’m hungry.

  16. He’s conjuring the house Negro, yes, but playing him as though he were Clarence Thomas or Alan Keyes or Herman Cain or Michael Steele, men whom some black people find embarrassing.

    Do those four have anything in common other than they are black conservatives? Did Samual Jackson channel that new South Carolina senator too? He’s black.

    Did Leo play his character as though he were Todd Palin, Joe the plumber, Stephen Baldwin, and John McCain?

  17. I think it’s also worth pointing out that Morris’ observation, in addition to being offensive, is not particularly bright.

    The Django character is a “Beria”. He’s vicious, but all of his power is ultimately dependent on his master, and as a result everything he does is bent towards getting and maintaining his master’s favor.

    Thomas doesn’t need anybody’s favor. Even if perhaps he once did, he sure doesn’t now. No black person in America, including Obama, is less dependent on the favor of whites than Clarence Thomas. He’s a free man (“…as a matter of fact, one of the freest men in Rome”). He exercises his power without check. He faces no voters. The other justices can’t remove him. It’s virtually impossible for him to be removed from his office.

    Every other black official in America is more beholden to the white man for his power than Clarence Thomas is.

    1. That may be the case now, but he certainly didn’t get there without affirmative action, both the actual program and when he was appointed–you can’t deny his appointment by a white president was almost entirely a matter of his race.

      That doesn’t mean he can’t be against affirmative action, but his history combined with the giant chip on his shoulder suggest something strange is going on inside his head.

      1. But since you can say that about any member of a minority group, the differentiating factor is their current status.

        If in the third act of Django Unchained the Stephen character murdered Leonardo DiCaprio and took over the house, it would be stupid to call him an Uncle Tom, no matter how he behaved in Acts I and II. Because that label can never apply when you’re top dog.

        Clarence Thomas is top dog.

        He could walk into work every day and say, “Fuck you crackin’ crackers!” and nobody can say fucking shit about it.

        He could write a minority opinion on every decision that said nothing but, “Where the white women at?” and nobody could touch him.

        Obama has close to that level of impunity now that he never has to face re-election again. But Obama’s term of office expires, and Thomas’ does not. And the chances of Obama getting impeached if “whitey” decides he’s “getting out of line” are higher than the chances of Thomas facing the same fate – Presidents are political targets in a way that justices are not.

      2. you can’t deny his appointment by a white president was almost entirely a matter of his race

        Wow, Tony. Do you actually hear what you’re saying?

        I suppose it’s OK to minimize the accomplishments of a colored person when it’s a colored person who disagrees with the left.

        1. I didn’t even notice that part of Tony’s post. I guess minimizing somebody’s accomplishments doesn’t even register as offensive in a world full of people who like to throw around “race-traitor”, “Uncle Tom”, “House Nigger”, etc…

        2. I reserve the right to minimize the accomplishments of people who succeeded via affirmative action when it was precisely the form of affirmative action that the Right thinks characterizes all affirmative action–promoting unqualified candidates based on race and race alone. Do you really deny that the main reason CT was chosen because he was black?

          CT is not a bad justice because he’s black. He’s a bad justice because there are so few black conservatives to choose from.

          1. Tony’s definition of a “bad justice” is anyone outside the stable of tiresome, predictable left-wing hacks (i.e., Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsberg).

            1. Unindicted Co-conspirator| 1.9.13 @ 1:40PM |#
              “Tony’s definition of a “bad justice” is anyone outside the stable of tiresome, predictable left-wing hacks (i.e., Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsberg).”

              You’re too kind, Shithead’s definition of “bad justice” is simply whatever lie shithead posts at a given time. Consistency does not matter to shithead; any lie is as good as any other.

          2. So then you also think the Wise Latina is unqualified for her job, being a self-described “affirmative action baby”, right?

            Oh, right, she’s a racist cunt just like you, so that’s totally like, different and stuff.

          3. Have you read Thomas’s upbringing, Tony? His background?

            Jesus. Christ.

            Liberals are evil for real.

      3. “but he certainly didn’t get there without affirmative action”

        Eat shit and die you fucking racist.

    2. Exactly right.

      Thomas is more his own man than many other blacks in public life. The fact that he stands by his beliefs in the face of overwhelming crticism from other African Americans is a testament to his personal integrity.

      How much would you respect him if he relented in the face of criticism and ruled against his professed beliefs because people called him names?

  18. tracing the 14th Amendment’s origins to the antislavery movement and to the efforts of the Radical Republicans of the 39th Congress, who sought to force the former Confederate states to respect fundamental rights after the Civil War?including the right to keep and bear arms, a provision of particular importance to the recently freed slaves, who were now facing the South’s incipient Jim Crow regime.

    Jim Crow laws didn’t appear until the end of reconstruction, which was 11 years after the end of the Civil War and 8 after the 14th amendment’s adoption.

    1. Right, I think that’s what the ‘incipient’ part meant. Even if they weren’t codified as such, it was clear that southern states were impeding the rights of freed slaves, which necessitated the amendment.

  19. “The liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box”

    “Which is why I am introducing sweeping people, uh, I mean gun control.”

    /Obama

  20. Oh look. Wesley Morris?
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WTuS…..Morris.jpg

    Puh-leeze. This guy is a complete flamer.

  21. This sounds good, i would like to see it.

  22. ESPN’s Rob Parker got suspended for calling RG3 a “cornball brother” and then just canned for questioning his authenticity as a black person. I fail to see how basically referring to Clarence Thomas as a house nigger is any different.

    1. Real American| 1.9.13 @ 11:09PM |#
      “ESPN’s Rob Parker got suspended for calling RG3 a “cornball brother” and then just canned for questioning his authenticity as a black person. I fail to see how basically referring to Clarence Thomas as a house nigger is any different.”

      And Condie Rice cannot be both intelligent and black! She doesn’t vote for the Top Men!

  23. I thought the faux controversy over the action figures was bat shit crazy, but now this? Have the left lost their minds? http://tinyurl.com/aasgvmu

  24. Morris may be too uninformed to know it, but the fact is no Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall has written more frequently or powerfully about American racism than Thomas.

  25. Politics and ideology left for another post, Django was a significant disappointment and probably Tarantino’s worst film. I was actually bored–bored, in a Tarantino movie–until Candie appeared, and then I was bored again at the conclusion.

    If watching thin characterization, dressage, and Kerry Washington sticking her fingers into her ears is all we have to look forward to in the post-Menke era, then Tarantino needs to hire someone who’s not afraid to tell him that he’s full of shit post-haste.

    1. thanks for these info. visit our web on Training Center Semarang.
      please comment to improvement.

      success for you all.

    2. thanks for these info. visit our web on Training Center Semarang.
      please comment to improvement.

      success for you all.

  26. Football is a very good sport, but motion of protection is necessary. Professional football clothes can provide you with sports very good protection.movement to bring you joy.
    Wholesale Cheap authentic NFL jerseys Believe you will feel good.

  27. 2013 Happy New Year,NFL,NBA,fashion kickoff for u

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.