Paper Calls Clarence Thomas 'Black Man with an Asterisk'

[zendari]

Text

An editorial in the Tuesday edition of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel seems to call into question the content and character behind the color of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? skin.

The newspaper ? openly liberal by virtue of this opinion piece ? is chock full of buzzwords straight out of the Democrat Party talking-points used to describe the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Saying the Alito nomination "lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation?s rich diversity,? the editors argue that Alito?s mere presence as a man should disqualify him from the opportunity to replace Sandra Day O?Connor on the High Court.

Apparently, the Journal-Sentinel editors view the "O?Connor seat? as a female entitlement.

Most troubling, however, is the degrading, racial slap the editors make at Thomas (emphasis added):

"In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.?

Will the Journal-Sentinel editors be given a free pass by their media colleagues for using such derogatory and disrespectful language ? not only to Thomas, but to all blacks and all Americans?


I wonder who is the true party of intolerance, bigotry, and hatred?

 

[Tab]

Both sides have a huge history of racism, intolerance, bigotry and hatred.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

An editorial in the Tuesday edition of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel seems to call into question the content and character behind the color of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? skin.

The newspaper ? openly liberal by virtue of this opinion piece ? is chock full of buzzwords straight out of the Democrat Party talking-points used to describe the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Saying the Alito nomination "lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation?s rich diversity,? the editors argue that Alito?s mere presence as a man should disqualify him from the opportunity to replace Sandra Day O?Connor on the High Court.

Apparently, the Journal-Sentinel editors view the "O?Connor seat? as a female entitlement.

Most troubling, however, is the degrading, racial slap the editors make at Thomas (emphasis added):

"In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.?

Will the Journal-Sentinel editors be given a free pass by their media colleagues for using such derogatory and disrespectful language ? not only to Thomas, but to all blacks and all Americans?


I wonder who is the true party of intolerance, bigotry, and hatred?

probably uncalled for, but not exactly untrue.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

An editorial in the Tuesday edition of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel seems to call into question the content and character behind the color of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? skin.

The newspaper ? openly liberal by virtue of this opinion piece ? is chock full of buzzwords straight out of the Democrat Party talking-points used to describe the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Saying the Alito nomination "lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation?s rich diversity,? the editors argue that Alito?s mere presence as a man should disqualify him from the opportunity to replace Sandra Day O?Connor on the High Court.

Apparently, the Journal-Sentinel editors view the "O?Connor seat? as a female entitlement.

Most troubling, however, is the degrading, racial slap the editors make at Thomas (emphasis added):

"In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.?

Will the Journal-Sentinel editors be given a free pass by their media colleagues for using such derogatory and disrespectful language ? not only to Thomas, but to all blacks and all Americans?


I wonder who is the true party of intolerance, bigotry, and hatred?

How could you make such intolerant, bigoted, and hateful claims?

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

An editorial in the Tuesday edition of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel seems to call into question the content and character behind the color of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? skin.

The newspaper ? openly liberal by virtue of this opinion piece ? is chock full of buzzwords straight out of the Democrat Party talking-points used to describe the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Saying the Alito nomination "lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation?s rich diversity,? the editors argue that Alito?s mere presence as a man should disqualify him from the opportunity to replace Sandra Day O?Connor on the High Court.

Apparently, the Journal-Sentinel editors view the "O?Connor seat? as a female entitlement.

Most troubling, however, is the degrading, racial slap the editors make at Thomas (emphasis added):

"In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.?

Will the Journal-Sentinel editors be given a free pass by their media colleagues for using such derogatory and disrespectful language ? not only to Thomas, but to all blacks and all Americans?


I wonder who is the true party of intolerance, bigotry, and hatred?

Yea its not like they didn't say arguably :roll: Which is more than he deserves. The day the black community complains about this is the day people will speak out against it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Good old Pubic Clar.

 

[Proletariat]

 

[her209]

Editorial in question

link

Editorial: A nomination that will divide
From the Journal Sentinel

Posted: Oct. 31, 2005

In picking Appeals Court Judge Samuel Alito for the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, President Bush gave his right flank what it wanted: a true-blue conservative. The question now is: Is Bush giving the country what it needs?

The nomination is troubling in that 1) it's liable to divide America rather than unite it, 2) it lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation's rich diversity and 3) Alito has taken worrisome stands on many issues. Still, Alito deserves the benefit of the doubt until he gets his day in court - or rather before the Senate Judiciary Committee - to make the case for his confirmation.

Bush had chosen White House counsel Harriet Miers to succeed the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, but many conservatives vigorously objected, questioning whether Miers had the intellectual stamina to stay conservative. The nominee withdrew her name. Now, Bush has picked Alito, a judge who may be in the archconservative mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Prior to Miers, Bush had named Appeals Court Judge John Roberts to succeed O'Connor but switched to have him succeed Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died in September. A guiding principle for Bush in the two previous nominations seemed to have been candidates with thin paper trails - the less to trip them up at the hearings.

Bush discarded that principle in naming Alito, who boasts a thick portfolio of opinions he's authored, the result of sitting on the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia for 15 years. Bush said that Alito "has more prior judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in more than 70 years." That experience, the intelligence he displays and his firm grasp of constitutional law are pluses.

But, regrettably, Bush declined to consult with Senate Democratic leaders in making his choice. A big reason President Clinton had relatively smooth sailing on his high court nominees is that he did consult with GOP leaders beforehand.

Another minus is that the nomination lessens the court's diversity. O'Connor herself had expressed the desire that her successor be a woman. O'Connor seems to have grown wiser about diversity as a result of her Supreme Court experience. She came to see the virtues of having a court that looks like America - doubtless a big reason she softened her opposition to affirmative action in recent years.

In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.

Finally, many of Alito's opinions, often dissents, are worrisome. He was the sole justice on a 3rd Circuit panel in 1991 to regard a Pennsylvania requirement that women notify their husbands before getting an abortion as not an undue burden on access to the procedure. The Supreme Court specifically disagreed with his dissent in an opinion written by O'Connor.

In 1996, he was the sole dissenter when the 3rd Circuit upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns. Also that year, he tried - in the end, futilely - to make it harder to bring discrimination complaints to trial.

These and many other issues deserve a thorough airing by the Judiciary Committee.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

An editorial in the Tuesday edition of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel seems to call into question the content and character behind the color of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? skin.

The newspaper ? openly liberal by virtue of this opinion piece ? is chock full of buzzwords straight out of the Democrat Party talking-points used to describe the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Saying the Alito nomination "lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation?s rich diversity,? the editors argue that Alito?s mere presence as a man should disqualify him from the opportunity to replace Sandra Day O?Connor on the High Court.

Apparently, the Journal-Sentinel editors view the "O?Connor seat? as a female entitlement.

Most troubling, however, is the degrading, racial slap the editors make at Thomas (emphasis added):

"In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.?

Will the Journal-Sentinel editors be given a free pass by their media colleagues for using such derogatory and disrespectful language ? not only to Thomas, but to all blacks and all Americans?


I wonder who is the true party of intolerance, bigotry, and hatred?

Uhhh, this is a stetch even for you.

Saying he doesn't represent mainstream black America != racist

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Tab
Both sides have a huge history of racism, intolerance, bigotry and hatred.

What would happen if a Republican was saying all these things? There would be an absolute firestorm...

 

[OrByte]

why are we all so thin skinned?

 

[SNiPeRX]

Originally posted by: OrByte
why are we all so thin skinned?

Im not sure, but they do it to robots in japan developing a flexible artifical skin that could give robots a humanlike sense of touch.

 

[Mursilis]

Maybe Justice Thomas needs to knock up his mistress to improve his "street cred". After all, it worked for Brother Jesse; no one questions him as a leader of "mainstream black America". :roll:

 

[smack Down]

Can anyone prove the author wrong? It isn't racist to point out that one black man opionon is different then most black peoples.

 

[Pabster]

The great MSM brainwashing at work.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The great MSM brainwashing at work.

Do you have any evidence which suggest that Thomas represent the views of mainstream black America.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

An editorial in the Tuesday edition of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel seems to call into question the content and character behind the color of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas? skin.

The newspaper ? openly liberal by virtue of this opinion piece ? is chock full of buzzwords straight out of the Democrat Party talking-points used to describe the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Saying the Alito nomination "lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation?s rich diversity,? the editors argue that Alito?s mere presence as a man should disqualify him from the opportunity to replace Sandra Day O?Connor on the High Court.

Apparently, the Journal-Sentinel editors view the "O?Connor seat? as a female entitlement.

Most troubling, however, is the degrading, racial slap the editors make at Thomas (emphasis added):

"In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.?

Will the Journal-Sentinel editors be given a free pass by their media colleagues for using such derogatory and disrespectful language ? not only to Thomas, but to all blacks and all Americans?


I wonder who is the true party of intolerance, bigotry, and hatred?

no, the writer is "openly liberal by virtue of this opinion piece"

oh, jesus. clicking the link, you didnt even come up with that gem.
youd think they would just re-print the op-ed bit.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Ever wonder what the black consensus of Clarence Thomas is ?

Stevegilliard.newsblog
Articles from a black perspective - by a black writer.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Jesus - since when did the Republicans become the party of thin-skinned whiners? Didn't you guys learn anything from the Gipper?

FWIW, Justice Thomas very clearly doesn't represent the sentiments of mainstream black Americans, who are overwhelmingly Democrats. Moreover, his appointment was, IMO, insulting to African-Americans, in that he was so transparently a token pick - he is a marginal intellect, and was among the least-qualified nominees ever appointed to the Court.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Can anyone prove the author wrong? It isn't racist to point out that one black man opionon is different then most black peoples.

Yeah, he is representative, that is if you think never saying anything, writing nothing and voting along side Scalia is representative..... :roll:

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: DonVito
Jesus - since when did the Republicans become the party of thin-skinned whiners? Didn't you guys learn anything from the Gipper?

Republicans? Check that other black conservative thread - they're not the ones chucking Oreos at people who dare to disagree.

 

[Tangerines]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The great MSM brainwashing at work.

Originally posted by: Pabster
What do you expect for CBS?

Then what do you watch, Fox?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Tab
Both sides have a huge history of racism, intolerance, bigotry and hatred.

What would happen if a Republican was saying all these things? There would be an absolute firestorm...

I wonder what happens if we called Barak Obama a black man with an asterisk.

If Thomas was white would he be degraded with an asterisk?

 

[Strk]

It's really not a racist statement though. At most, they could have said African American. But can you at all disprove that Clarence Thomas doesn't represent African Americans as a whole? His career on the bench involves saying nothing, writing nothing and agreeing with Scalia.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Strk
It's really not a racist statement though. At most, they could have said African American. But can you at all disprove that Clarence Thomas doesn't represent African Americans as a whole? His career on the bench involves saying nothing, writing nothing and agreeing with Scalia.

Come on, you can at least admit a similar comment about someone made by a Republican would ignite a firestorm in short order.

It isn't nearly as insensitive as Byrd's use of the N word or something along those lines, but still, dismissing it as 'nothing' shows either naivety or obfuscation.