- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Is there a thread on this already, didn't see one?
Only opening remarks thus far, but anyone else kinda find it politically questionable for the GOPers on the committee to concertedly attack Thurgood Marshall? Sure, 8 out of 10 Americans probably couldn't tell you who he is, but they had to figure the press would make an issue out of it. Calling one of the more celebrated justices in US history (not to mention the first black justice) an activist results-oriented "out of the mainstream" judge that one would be foolish to model themselves after seems at the very least poor optics for a party still struggling with minority constituency, and at the outside can be construed as a tangential attack on Brown v Bd of Ed, for which he is known as the arguing attorney. No question Marshall was a liberal, but did the GOP need to choose him as the ideal of what not to do? Yes, Kagan clerked for him, but I just see this as a poor decision.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/...:+wsj/washwire/feed+(WSJ.com:+Washington+Wire)
Only opening remarks thus far, but anyone else kinda find it politically questionable for the GOPers on the committee to concertedly attack Thurgood Marshall? Sure, 8 out of 10 Americans probably couldn't tell you who he is, but they had to figure the press would make an issue out of it. Calling one of the more celebrated justices in US history (not to mention the first black justice) an activist results-oriented "out of the mainstream" judge that one would be foolish to model themselves after seems at the very least poor optics for a party still struggling with minority constituency, and at the outside can be construed as a tangential attack on Brown v Bd of Ed, for which he is known as the arguing attorney. No question Marshall was a liberal, but did the GOP need to choose him as the ideal of what not to do? Yes, Kagan clerked for him, but I just see this as a poor decision.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/...:+wsj/washwire/feed+(WSJ.com:+Washington+Wire)
Last edited:
