The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
WaPo Describes Justice Thomas: "the Black justice whose rulings often resemble the thinking of White conservatives."
Discourse about race is upside down and backwards.
Representative Jim Clyburn of South Carolina is pushing Judge J. Michelle Childs for the Supreme Court. Yet, some progressives are worried that she may be too moderate. The Washington Post wrote a lengthy article about Clyburn, and his influence on President Biden. The article contends that Childs is not moderate, but will make progressives happy. The Post quotes Rep. Bennie Thompson (the chair of the January 6 Commission) to assuage concerns about Childs on the left:
Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), a friend and ally of Clyburn's for over 30 years, said even Clyburn's critics respect his political instincts and his connection with a valuable but often disappointed subset of Democratic voters.
"Nobody that I'm aware of feels that opposing Clyburn's nomination would be the wise thing to do," he said. "If you know that a person has been vetted by Jim Clyburn, you know that person won't go to the court and end up being a Clarence Thomas," referring to the Black justice whose rulings often resemble the thinking of White conservatives.
The Washington Post wrote the emphasized portion. You know, Justice Thomas, the black justice who thinks like a white person. The Washington Post called Justice Thomas an Oreo. And that statement isn't even accurate! The Court's white conservatives issue rulings that often resemble those of Justice Thomas. Thomas is the intellectual leader of the Court's conservative wing. And he has been for decades. Gorsuch, Alito, and the rest are just trying to keep up with CT. But once again, we get the racist trope that Thomas is Scalia's clone. Just the opposite. Scalia often remarked that Thomas pushed him to the right. What lazy writing from the Post.
Discourse about race is upside and backwards. Racially-tinted sentiments about progressives are grounds for immediate cancellation. Racially-charged attacks about conservatives are offered as objective facts in a newspaper of record.
This article brings to mind an exchange between Justice Thomas and then-Senator Biden more than three decades ago.
And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. -- U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.
Justice Thomas still deigns to think for himself, and refuses to kowtow to the old order run by Thompson and Clyburn. And for that reason, he continues to be destroyed by the left, without even the slightest hesitation.
Oh, and by the way, in 2005 then-Senator Biden threatened to filibuster then-Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who credibly could have (and should have) become the first black woman on the Supreme Court.
Finally, the knives are out for Judge Childs. Consider this charge in Nina Totenberg's report:
Born in Detroit in 1966, she was 13 when her mother, a Michigan Bell telephone manager, moved the family to South Carolina. By then her mother and father had been divorced for some time. But within months of the move, the judge recalled in a 2018 speech, "I received a phone call that my father, a police officer, had died in Detroit from gunshot wounds. Of course, I was devastated."
Beyond that, little is publicly known about her father's death in 1980, except that the Associated Press reported at the time that that he "died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest." Although Rep. James Clyburn, who has been aggressively lobbying for Childs' nomination, has said her father died "in the line of duty," Ralph Childs is not on the Michigan state list of "fallen officers" in 1980.
Totenberg "in some form or another suggested" that the story about Judge Childs's father's death may not be entirely accurate. Are we really going there? Critiquing Childs for not accurately characterizing the death of her father? Has anyone checked out Judge Childs's high school yearbook? She was valedictorian after all. Who knows what she wrote!? If only Michael Avenatti was free to help out. Maybe the prison library has some resources.
This process will get even uglier, very quickly.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Ah, yes, when the "anti-racists" tell people what they are allowed to think based on what race they are. How forward-thinking.
The Washington Post is the hate speech, propaganda outlet for Jeff Bezos. It has the credibility of the David Duke website. Duke posts items that make Jews and blacks look bad. The Washington Post is no different. It has no journalistic professionalism. It just spews hate.
A career violent criminal was loosed by the Democrats. He stabbed an innocent Asian woman 40 times. She bled to death in that painful way to die in her bathtub, after being sexually assaulted. That is 100% the fault of the lawyer profession. End all sovereign immunity. Make the government pay for its mistakes, until it is bankrupted.
That career violent thug was a diverse, privileged, protected, and empowered by the lawyer profession. He should have been deceased after age 14, instead of that beautiful, innocent Asian woman.
Clarence Thomas comparing his confirmation hearing to a lynching was, and remains, disgraceful. If his nomination had been defeated, he would have remained a lifetime appointee to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- nice work if you can get it.
Then-Judge Thomas had made a career as a black Republican toady -- first to John Danforth and then to Ronald Reagan. He was an affirmative action nominee for George H. W. Bush, and he didn't start playing the race card until it appeared that his nomination was in peril. The man showed himself to be a shameless opportunist.
If in the hereafter Mr. Thomas meets some real lynching victims, I hope they beat the stuffing out of him for trivializing the horror of what they went through.
Bro, you seem a bit hangry like Betty White in that Snickers commercial. Have a snack.
Well, at least you spelled his name right.
Flagged for advocating violence against a sitting Justice. Your comment needs to be removed.
The number of "real" lynching victims is about 1/100th of the number of whites murdered by blacks since the 1960s.
An inconvenient truth. Black on white crime >> White on black crime
Black crime>>>> any other demographic crime rate
But beware of white supremacy at all times
Don't forget, the attempted murder of Louisville Democrat mayoral candidate Craig Greenberg by Democrat black BLM anti-gun activist Quintez Brown (with a gun no less) is being blamed on Republicans & white supremecism.
35000 white women are raped by blacks a year. No black woman is raped by a white a year. Thank the vile lawyer profession for the rapes of 35000 white women by black criminals, all repeat violent offenders.
Makes sense. White men generally don't want to have sex with black women period, much less by criminal means.
Well said ng
What's also disgraceful are identity politics, where, according to white people, only a person of particular color can represent a group of that particular color -- as long as their politics are Democratic.
In other words, know them by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. If conflict, skin wins.
Justice Thomas should have been prosecuted for filing false financial disclosures for several years, which omitted his wife's income from hiring out to special interest groups, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001. It was a matter of public concern as to which right wing figures were putting biscuits on the Thomas family breakfast table, not to mention the judicial ethics of her being an advocate for hire.
Once again with the food references. First stuffing, now biscuits. For the love of God, log off and eat something before you turn into that Behar guy who, like you, wishes violence and imprisonment upon his ideological opposites.
He should not have been prosecuted for ideological reasons, but for criminal conduct. Can you defend Justice Thomas's filing of false financial disclosures?
Well, there is the issue that nobody but you seems to think that there were any actual false financial disclosures. But if you're sure you're right, the proper recourse is to start impeachment proceedings.
Unless you are claiming that the Democratically-controlled House has ideological reasons to ignore criminal conduct of a Supreme Court Justice that they oppose at every turn?
justice Thomas for several years filed financial disclosures which omitted his wife's income, and later filed corrected disclosures. This would seem to admit the falsity of the original filings.
OK, any evidence he knowingly and willfully filed false disclosures?
I can defend not using the power of investigation against political opponents...because suddenly there's an opponent to be hurt.
He just thinks a woman should stay in her own husband's kitchen to make biscuits, instead of having a job outside the house. What is wrong with that kind of thinking?
That is unfair. I advocate accountability after due process. Please, be more accurate.
Nitpicking is a type of bad faith. Zero tolerance for nitpicking.
First, that WaPo description is horrendous and racist. I don’t think even the Reverend Arthur L. Kirkland would stoop so low in his description of Justice Thomas or another prominent black conservative. The author and editor should apologize and go work the weather page for the next 5 years.
Second, I actually appreciate the NPR reporting re: Fields’ dad’s death. I don’t know much about her at all, but I was moved when I heard about her father being shot and killed as a police officer. Like many, I assumed it was by an assailant in the line of duty. A suicide would not be any less tragic for the judge as a young girl (maybe more so), but it is important info to be reported for accuracy’s sake, because I think some of the judge’s backers have given the impression that she may be palatable to certain law-and-order Republicans because her father not only was a cop, but was killed as the result of criminal violence. Clarifying that it was reportedly a suicide provides a more accurate picture.
I can understand somebody whose dad suicided being a big vague and maybe misrepresenting a bit the circumstances of her dad's death.
And I follow your logic about how left-winger might reason about this.
It's still a bad sign when you find a judge is willing to shade the truth.
It's one thing to say that he died suddenly. It's another thing to say he died in the line of duty.
I am going to give her the benefit of doubt on the cause of her fathers death. At the time she was only 8 years old. Its very common for a young child when a parent dies to have a misunderstanding of the cause of death and not learn the additional facts until much later, (age 30-50 in many cases). Police is shot, very logical for an 8 year to think a criminal shot him.
Similar case was my aunt died of pancreatic cancer when I was 6 years old. I always assumed that she died of lung cancer because she smoked. Didnt learn it was pancreatic cancer until I was 50
In summary - give her the benefit of doubt on this issue. its really a non-issue.
It seems probable her mother and family would withhold detailed information from a child, although according to the quote above she was 13 or 14 when her father died.
Rsteinmetz
Concur -
As you stated since she was only 13 (correcting my comment that she was 8). Under those circumstances it is very likely family member withheld details about the death or alternatively she was told but could not grasp the subject matter at that age and made assumptions consistent with concepts she understood.
Since I have two personal experiences with a similar misunderstanding of two relatives causes of death, i can easily understand the likely error, As such I give the benefit of doubt on this issue. The other was a step - aunt in law that committed suicide when I was 10 or 11. I knew she had died at the time, but didnt learn until I was 60 that it was a suicide.
Bottom line, mistating the cause of the fathers death is a non issue. FWIW , I personally would prefer a judge similar to Barret , Gorsuch or Thomas to be appointed.
For clarification, did she ever say that her father died in the line of duty? The quote above merely says that she was told her father died "of gunshot wounds". Which, at the time, was probably true.
The article above implies that it is Rep Clyburn making the false claim about 'in the line of duty'. If he's the only one, we ought not taint the candidate with the false claims of her supporters.
That's fair.
In fact, all we know about the death of Judge Childs' father is that :
"the Associated Press reported at the time that that he "died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest.""
So it is possible that he died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest. But it is also possible that he was eaten by a crocodile. Seeing as it's the AP reporting, the odds are about 50-50 either way.
Moreover, from the progressive point of view, killing yourself as a result of a traumatic experience "in the line of duty" is very much dying "in the line of duty" as we see here :
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/second-officer-capitol-riot-dies-suicide-police-chief-says-n1256003
"Second officer from Capitol riot dies by suicide, police chief says"
""Other harm from this traumatic day will be widely felt but possibly unacknowledged," the acting chief of the Metropolitan Police Department said."
So when Jim Clyburn says he died in the line of duty, we are perfectly free to understand him in that light. If women can have testicles, police officers who shoot themselves can certainly die in the line of duty.
For myself, since any Biden pick will be a Screaming Left Batshit Crazy Harpy and we're stuck with that, this disposes me semi-favorably to this particular SLBCH. If the Washington Post wants to torpedo her nomination, she can't be all bad.
And if the WP wants to torpedo her nomination so badly that it's prepared to call Jim Clyburn a liar, an act of outrageous lese majesty, one can only conclude that Judge Childs may even experience occasional moments of sanity.
Being a police officer is an esp stressful job, esp in big cities, and here, the stress of losing his family would likely have increased that stress significantly. While her father’s death may not have been strictly in the line of duty, it is very likely that his job as a big city policeman contributed greatly to his suicide.
Yeah, I net out the same. Big city cop...you see the worst of humanity every day. For years. It damages your psyche, no matter how strong your personality. Some cannot handle it and commit suicide. It is a human tragedy (and traumatic) to a daughter.
If Thomas is a leader of right-wingery on the court, it's because he has been there longer (1.8 times as long) and absorbed more details of the far-right ideologues' marching-orders.
Back in the Reagan years, it was just possible to take seriously the idea that the right-wing's expectations of their justices were based on an intellectual principle or set of principles. "Interpret the law, don't write the law" appeared to be a reasonable characterization. But today? Not even close. Not since Scalia decided that the first thirteen words of the Second Amendment were pure-ornaments, devoid of prescriptive meaning, as if they were a preamble, or what BASIC programmers know as a "REM statement" or something like that.
Your complaint doesn't make a lot of sense here; You can validly complain that most of the conservatives on the Court are not particularly principled, but Thomas is actually the most principled of them, frequently arriving at conclusions he must personally dislike.
Since the Justices didn't write the Constitution, any of them that are actually principled will be forced to do that occasionally.
BTW, in saying that Thomas is the most principled among them, that doesn't mean I always agree with him. But he follows the reasoning where it goes, even if he doesn't like the destination, that's principle.
The first thirteen words of the 2nd Amendment put the rest of the Amendment in context.
Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the 2A restricts the intrusion of govt on people's liberties. It guarantees the "right of the people to keep and bear arms."
The right doesn't belong to the state or Federal govt. (Is there a govt that doesn't have arms?) The people have the right to keep and bear arms.
The opening clauses put this right in the context of the need for an armed populace to protect a free state.
Legally speaking, it is ornamental.
I love how these clowns such as the commenter above keep stating how Thomas himself has no agency. How racist are they.
All white liberals have a white-savior complex. They see all blacks as victims who can only succeed with their help. It naturally follows that they believe blacks should see themselves as victims, and Justice Thomas clearly does not view himself as one. From the progressive's perspective, to view blacks as individuals with agency, rather than as children requiring guidance who are largely not responsible for their actions is "white conservative thinking".
White progressives infantilize blacks. It's just "White Man's Burden" redux.
They say the best way to combat generalizing about white conservatives is to generalize about white liberals.
Tone-policing is so 2019.
I mean, that's pretty much 180° from the truth. Thomas perceives different victimizers, but he absolutely perceives himself as a victim.
Thomas is a victim of the lawyer lynch mob, nitpickers, false allegers, the usual way lawyers operate.
No.
There is a difference between understanding that you have been attacked and perceiving yourself as a perpetual victim.
Justice Thomas understands that the Left hates him and would do absolutely anything to attack him.
He doesn't see himself as a victim though.
You know, Justice Thomas, the black justice who thinks like a white person.
Except that's exactly *not* what they wrote.
Perhaps you would care to quote exactly what they wrote so that you can demonstrate what tiny sliver of a hair you claim is "exactly *not*"?
Here, I'll save you the effort: "the Black justice whose rulings often resemble the thinking of White conservatives." Blackman even quoted it in the headline of the blog post. In contrast, the part you claim is "exactly *not* what they wrote" is exactly *not* a quote but an obvious paraphrase. An accurate one, unless you think his rulings do not reflect his actual thoughts.
Yes, that's what they wrote. "Like a white conservative" =/ "like a white person".
White conservatives are a subset of white people. Therefore, if you say that someone's thinking resembles that of a white conservative, you have claimed it resembles that of a white person.
If I say my animal is a German Shepherd, I have said that he is a dog.
Logic 101: Take it.
That's nonsense.
There are white liberals and white conservatives.
When you say "he thinks like a white person" you are saying his thinking is characteristic of white people. It isn't.
If I say, "My cat is the size of a beagle," that's not at all the same as saying, "My cat is the size of a dog." Dogs come in many sizes, just as white people hold a variety of political views.
That kind of defense reminds me of the argument that blatant references to "those people" weren't racist because race was not explicitly mentioned. Very popular with Democrats.
Why is it necessary to throw the "white" modifier? Why not just say conservative? Your racism is showing. "If you look like X, you must think like X."
Thomas is the intellectual leader of the Court's conservative wing.
Nah. The think tanks paying Ginni Thomas are the intellectual leaders of the Court's conservative wing.
Justice Thomas's opinions / writings / speeches must be pretty damn impressive if the best you can do is attack his wife.
What would you think if Biden nominated someone whose husband was a professional radical left-wing activist?
That it was a day ending in "y"?
+10
Delusional right-wing bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties.
Oh really?
Can you be specific? Is Doug Emhoff a professional left-wing activist?
Or are you using, "Anyone to the left of myself" as your definition?
Biden did not nominate Kamala Harris, so why are you asking about her husband?
Josh, no thinking human cares what is published in the Bezos blog called the Washington Post.
"This process will get even uglier, very quickly."
-Says Josh Blackman, doing his best to make things as ugly as possible in his hourly venting.
How so? Has he written anything disparaging about the current set of presumed candidates?
Todays use of the word "white" is ridiculous. Daily if you substituted the word black for white in discussions/publications there would be howls of racism and numerous firings cancels etc.
Its no better here. Thomas is conservative who happens to be black. It's ok racist liberals for black folks to have different viewpoints
Blacks can have a different viewpoint, but they still must vote democrat and no share their different viewpoint.
Is it false that Justice Thomas is black and that this rulings resemble the thinking of white conservatives? I think white conservatives would agree: (1) that he is black; and (2) that his rulings resemble their thinking, and that at least one of these things is good.
I'm quite sure that the resemblance is, simply, resemblance, and that it reflects Justice Thomas's own thinking, for better or worse. I see nothing in the piece that suggests otherwise, or even addresses the question.
To me, his rulings resemble the thinking of conservatives generally. To be a white conservative you'd need to talk a lot more about the Bell Curve, and maybe wilding and 'black culture.'
I don't see that in Thomas.
Sowell, on the other hand...
To be clear, not all white conservatives dip their toe into such fraught racial waters. But those that do are almost always white.
Yea a lot of folks ignore reality and the truth for fear of being called racist. h
But no fear is required to generalize and even make crap up like "our biggest threat is white supremacy"
hook line and sinker
bwa ha hahahahahahaha
Yeah, white conservatives are almost always white.
Can't fault you there!
I talk to a lot of white conservatives. I can't remember anyone ever bringing up the Bell Curve, but there is a lot of discussion of culture.
In societies in which there is not overt discrimination, groups that do poorly socially and economically almost always have cultures that are not well adapted to success. Groups with cultures that are well-adapted succeed, even in the face of considerable discrimination.
This is true all over the world, among people of all colors.
"Is it false that Justice Thomas is black and that this rulings resemble the thinking of white conservatives?"
Can you please explain why you think Thomas's rulings resemble the thinking of white conservatives more than the thinking of black conservatives, Asian conservatives, or Indian conservatives?
It's the idiotic (and racist!) idea that only "whites" can really be conservative; non-"whites" are just doing it to please their "masters." Here's a fine example of this (ugly, racist) thinking:
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/454865-bette-midler-under-fire-for-asking-how-much-trump-pays-black
1. Because there are a lot more of them, and all far more influential than the others.
2. Because that was precisely why he was nominated.
Clarence Thomas was nominated for the same reason that all modern justices have been nominated: The President saw him as both confirmable and willing and able to argue a view of the law that the President saw as consistent with his own.
Can't think of any other reasons, Macy's Window?
From what I have observed, perhaps you are that dumb.
Carry on, clinger. So far as your betters permit, that is.
I used to have a grudging respect for Thomas.
I respected him for being 1) clearly really smart and a good writer, 2) hiring clerks from nonstandard places, and 3) being one of the most consistent justices on the bench, albeit via a lunatic angle not even right wing academics subscribe to.
Since Trump, he's lost that third bit. Harder to respect him now.
Still better than Alito though.
Philosophical disagreement aside...(I understand your perspective, Sarcastr0) I would say this.
Clarence Thomas has an incredible life story. Considering his early life, it is nothing short of miraculous that today he is SCOTUS Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. That could only happen here in America; it perfectly illustrates why I love my country. Anyone from anywhere in our country can do almost anything....and it happens here every day.
Great story, no issue there. But rags to riches is not so uniquely American.
Saw this last week:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Gray_(civil_servant)
Born in north London, Gray is the daughter of Irish immigrants who moved to Tottenham in the early 1950s; her father was a furniture salesman and her mother a barmaid. Following her father's sudden death in 1975, Gray abandoned her plan of going to university and joined the Civil Service straight from school. She took a career break in the late 1980s, when she ran the Cove Bar, a pub in Newry, a border town in Northern Ireland, during The Troubles.
Due to the lack of political appointees in England, she's risen in the ranks to a powerful inspector-general type role, and a thorn in the side of all parties in power for decades.
Thomas didn't even speak English as his native language or have indoor plumbing when he was a small child. He spoke Gullah, a creole. Thomas' father left the family when he was 2. The family was as poor as anyone in the United States.
I am sure that Sue Gray had it hard. But she was practically a princess compared to Thomas.
Many people just don't understand race very well.
You see, Thomas may be racially black, but he's not judicially black.
There is a difference, you see.
Something a friend of mine observed recently is that most black politicians are not particularly progressive, except with regard to the interests of their constituents. I live in New Orleans, which like many cities is experiencing a significant increase in violent crimes including shooting and carjackings. Our recently elected Black 'Progressive" DA has backtracked on a number of his campaign promises on bail, treatment of minor defendants and other things. The majority Black City Council and Mayor are ramping up calls for increased policing.
threatened to filibuster then-Justice Janice Rogers Brown, who credibly could have (and should have) become the first black woman on the Supreme Court.
You know, the baseless Rogers Brown grievance threatens to supplant the baseless Bork grievance as a conservative gripe.
Neither of those two crackpots should have come anywhere near the Supreme Court.
Why do you think Rogers Brown was crackpot?
She thinks Title VII is unconstitutional.
In an AA case she went against SCOTUS precedent because it was 'wrongly decided.' Which a lower court judge should never do.
Probably more stuff, but that's what I remember hearing about.
Thinking Title VII is unconstitutional used to be pretty common, and still isn't rare; Remember, the 14th amendment is clear about only reaching state actions, and the majority of economic transactions it's applied to are intrastate. So it's quite easy to conclude that Title VII is unconstitutional in most of its applications.
It might be a position that lost, but it's not a crackpot position.
In an appellate judge? That's radical as all hell.
You're allowed to mix up is and ought; you're an engineer commenting on a law blog. JRB? That's something else.
She didn't think that anyway. I believe Sarcastro is engaging in a little motivated memory on both these claims.
Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc. 980 P.2d 846 (Cal. 1999).
Check out her dissent - it argues that a speech-based hostile work environment cannot be employment discrimination. And she laughably argues that was the state of the law.
She's an ideologue, with an out there ideology. Takes all kinds, but not a great look on a federal judge.
"Check out her dissent - it argues that a speech-based hostile work environment cannot be employment discrimination. And she laughably argues that was the state of the law."
The claim that speech-based hostile work environment cannot be banned as employment discrimination consistent with the first amendment is a defensible position take by Prof. Volokh, among others, and is probably the correct position.
And it's not laughable to argue that that was the law in 1999. There's certainly no workplace exception to the 1A.
If Prof. Volokh becomes an appeals court judge, I'll also say he's really out there.
That was not the law in 1999 - there was a Supreme Court case on point she spent a lot of time weakly trying to distinguish!
I remember that case, and that's not what she said. Her dissent was about whether an injunction could be entered to prohibit the speech, rather than about whether the speech could be actionable.
Thus, if anything, R.A.V. suggests Title VII's content-based regulation of speech is invalid to the extent it regulates "fully protected speech" like the speech at issue here. In other words, if the ordinance at issue in R.A.V. was unconstitutional because it singled out for regulation only those fighting words that "provoke[d] violence 'on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender'" then a fortiori Title VII is unconstitutional because it is a content-based regulation of speech not limited to fighting words.
This does not seem a point limited to injunctions.
1. No. (If anything, she adopted the same approach to title VII as Prof. Volokh, at about the time he was writing about it.)
2. No.
"that's what I remember "
Like the majority of soldiers being black? That kind of remembering?
To start with, she can't tell the difference between the Bolshevik revolution and the New Deal.
She seems to be a completely devout Randian, which goes a long way toward proving the case.
And THAT is why I love her -- STRONG BLACK WOMAN called out your pale commie A$$!!!!!!!!
Come on, she's nowhere near as bad as Bork was.
Though I don't particularly mind dissents to go to rather inventive places since they're losing anyway.
What Pravda on the Potomac meant to say was that Justice Thomas is a human justice whose rulings often resemble the thinking of competent, intellectually-honest legal scholars.
Apparently, Conservative trumps Black on the intersectionality ladder.
Regarding discourse on race. There is too much of it.
I'm going with Morgan Freeman on this one
Freeman notes there is no "white history month," and says the only way to get rid of racism is to "stop talking about it."
"Are we really going there? Critiquing Childs for not accurately characterizing the death of her father?"
Actually, if you'd read the piece that you quoted, it sounds much more like Totenberg is critiquing Rep. Clyburn for not accurately characterizing the death of Childs' father. Quite a different thing, unless you're a hack like Blackman.
It is so blatantly racist to presume that people's thinking follows their skin color.
I guess the WaPo and the left in general don't really care any more. As long as they perceive political gains due to division by race, they will take advantage of it.
Are they saying Justice Thomas isn't black? Or isn't black enough? Because I don't understand racist.
This is a really thoughtful post and thanks for making it.
It is not lazy writing. They didn't do it by accident. This is what they believe. The writers for the Post and white liberals in general are racist. It is inconceivable to them that a black man could think for himself and be an influence on white men.
I'm sure Biden will call a press conference to denounce the racism here in the WaPo as early as this afternoon...
I don't suppose it has occurred to anyone that Thomas might be pulling the court towards the black thinking?
The white conservatives whose thinking often resembles the rulings of Black SCOTUS justices.