Mr. Justice Whoop-dee-damn-doo
We're working our way backward through the '90s. With OJ Simpson again on the national stage, it was inevitable that Clarence Thomas would follow. The Thomas confirmation hearings were a milestone in real-time mass-mediated American psychodrama. Before the Juice, there was Long Dong Silver. Before the bloody glove, there was the pubic-hairy Coke can. Before the suicidal white Bronco driver, there was the victimized black conservative martyr. Before there was OJ's jury nullification, there was Thomas' "high-tech lynching," which acquitted him right onto the Supreme Court.
I still recall being so obsessed by the Judiciary Committee hearings that I listened to them through an earphone while pushing a baby stroller through the mall. I remember watching Arlen Specter and Orrin Hatch hard at work, attempting to destroy Anita Hill, and finally understanding what the Salem Witch Trials must have been like. I remember being torn between awe at Chairman Joe Biden's pomposity and amazement at the goings-on in his scalp. I remember calling my friend Jack Rosenthal, then the editor of the editorial page of the New York Times, nearly every day, haranguing him to stiffen the Senate's opposition. To this day, I recall my revulsion at George H.W. Bush's cynically gleeful, preposterous attempt to frame the Thomas nomination as a filling of the Thurgood Marshall seat.
It turns out, of course, that the alarming character traits Anita Hill observed in her boss Clarence Thomas were nothing compared to the nutcase judicial temperament he has since revealed. At his confirmation hearing, Thomas -- like Marshall before him, and Roberts and Alito after him -- paid tribute to stare decisis, the importance of precedent in guiding Supreme Court decisions. But no less an authority than arch-conservative fellow Associate Justice Antonin Scalia told Thomas' biographer, Ken Foskett, that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." If you think nutcase is too strong a word to summarize that view, listen again to Scalia, as quoted in this Terry Gross interview with Jeff Toobin about his new Supreme Court book, The Nine:
Mr. TOOBIN: Clarence Thomas is not just the most conservative member of the Rehnquist court or the Roberts court. He's the most conservative justice to serve on the court since the 1930s. If you take what Thomas says seriously, if you read his opinions, particularly about issues like the scope of the federal government, he basically thinks that the entire work of the New Deal is unconstitutional. He really believes in a conception of the federal government that hasn't been supported by the justices since Franklin Roosevelt made his appointments to the court. You know, I went to a speech that Justice Scalia gave at a synagogue here in New York a couple of years ago, and someone asked him, `What's the difference between your judicial philosophy and Justice Thomas?' I thought a very good question. And Scalia talked for a while and he said, `Look, I'm a conservative. I'm a texturalist. I'm an originalist. But I'm not a nut.' And I thought that...
GROSS: Meaning that he thinks Thomas is one.
Mr. TOOBIN: Well, that was certainly the implication.
GROSS: Mm-hmm.
Mr. TOOBIN: It was pretty amazing. I mean, Thomas is well outside the mainstream, even of the conservatives on the court.
The Roberts-Scalia-Thomas-Alito-and-sometimes-Kennedy fivesome on the Court today is the closest the country has come to the domination of the third branch of government by the same ideology that gave us the Bush administration and its Congressional and Fourth Estate enablers. If Justice Stevens can hang on, and if Democrats can nominate and confirm his successor, there is a chance that the Constitution can continue to rely on the better angels of Justice Kennedy's nature. But even so, I fear that the first Monday in October has lost an essential element of its grandeur for years to come. When Justice Souter wept after the Bush v. Gore decision, he was not only mourning the naked politicization of justice; he was anticipating the tragic abrogation of the Constitution that we have experienced in the seven years since. No reaction to that silent coup is more appallingly prescient than what Justice Thomas now tells us in his memoir was his reaction when his wife came to him in his bath to say that the Senate had confirmed him 52 to 48: "Whoop-dee-damn-doo."
Follow Marty Kaplan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/martykaplan
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Don't you think it is past time for you Thomas junkies to "get over it"?
OJ was guilty, and has vindicated that opinion with his actions ever since.
To my knowledge, Justice Thomas has not been arrested for criminal behavior since his confirmation hearing. Unless you consider conservative opinions "criminal".
By the way, the Constitution does not reserve a seat on the Supreme Court for a black, a Hispanic, or a woman. There is no "Thurgood Marshall" chair.
It appears not all Americans believe in our criminal courts; O.J. was found NOT GUILTY. If one cannot accept that verdict then one cannot accept any verdict or ruling or finding from any court at any level.
One case. ONE. The criminal justice system is not perfect, obviously, but to extrapolate this verdict to condemn the whole system is extreme.
If you have a sensationalist way of looking at things, then you might want to rest your attention on what he "got away with or not".
The real point is that this man has rabidly tried to push our society towards a version of conservatism considered unpalatable by most (including conservatives).
The question is, did people's fear of being castigated as racists stop them from speaking up when it was apparent where this runaway train was headed?
Justice Thomas says that the present day so-called "Progressives" (and you know who you are, Mr. Kaplan) are a more venal and dangerous bunch than the Southern racists who dominated his childhood. He is absolutely right. Mr. Kaplan's screed is a mediocre example of the hate-baiting pamphlets routinely produced during the Jim Crow days in Georgia and in my hometown of Beaumont, Texas. The only disturbing difference is that, while the overt racism of the Jim Crow laws was finally repudiated by Southern Civic leaders, Mr. Kaplan's brand of racism is thriving on steroids in the salons of the left.
Beaumont is my hometown. This is what I'm talking about. Criticize Clarence Thomas for his political bent as a justice, for being a "nut", as described by his own ideological peer, and you are labeled a racist.
Who's the racist? I see that you are a dim bulb just like your hero, Clarence "Uncle" Thomas. Your hero, who was put on the Supreme Court for his skin color, hates his own race even more than he hates women. He freely took advantage of Affirmative Action to get where he is, then cut off the tap for everyone else. He is not even a blip on the radar screen of justices who have rendered well-thought out decisions, and helped the American People. It is well-known that he is joined to Scalia at the hip. They deserve each other. We, the American People, deserve better. Clarence Thomas is yet another gift from the Bush crime family, shows you what they think of the court system and the American People.
I don't embrace your characterization - the point being that not all progressives think alike.
Your "Uncle" remark is a racist jab, and saying he "hates his own race even more than he hates women" is likewise unhelpful hyperbole.
And the fact that Scalia implied CT is a "nut" means they are not joined at the hip.
"Justice Thomas says that the present day so-called "Progressives" (and you know who you are, Mr. Kaplan) are a more venal and dangerous bunch than the Southern racists who dominated his childhood.
I don't see too many "progressives" dragging black men behind trucks.
And that Southern "repudiation" didn't do much for the Jena Six...unti
As to Justice Thomas, methinks he doth protest too much. The guy was guilty as sin (read, e.g., "Blinded By The Right."). His rage is premised on a realization that he almost got caught with his pants down (terrible, I know, but I'm corny. Sorry). There is no racial component to this situation, except perhaps the blame Thomas deserves for putting his mindless ideology over the needs and rights of African-Americans. It's the ideology that is the problem, not his skin color.
What does being a Supreme Court justice have to do with the needs of African-Americans? A judge is supposed to rule on the cases brought before him with impartiality.
CT is not impartial, but the problem is his religious conservative bias.
The two best arguments against affirmative action hiring policies are Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell. Powell was a willing tool back in Vietnam where he came to attention by his coverup of the My Lai Massacre. Thomas was foisted on us by that sanctimonious fool Danforth of Missouri. That Biden -- another total fool -- could permit a cheap shill like Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall on the SC is all one needs to know about Biden's judgement.
Clarence Thomas is a nitwit and a hypocrite. Many posts here have addressed the latter, so I'll address the former.
Thomas, along with his nutjob compatriot Scalia, believes that actual innocence is not grounds for an appeal. That's right, if you've been convicted of a crime, say rape, and evidence such as DNA proves you are actually innocent, Thomas and Scalia say "too bad, you already had your chance in court!"
If you don't believe me, go read their opinion on Herrera v Collins.
You are quite correct; they overlook the doughnut and instead focus on the hole.
See your problem is that you are unable to seperate your emotions from fact.
The opinion you attribute to Thomas and Scalia while exaggerated is actually correct. Speaking strictly within Appealate law as the justices have, new evidence would not automatically be grounds for an appeal.
Instead of blaming them for actually understanding the judicial system why not be pissed that the legislature doesn't fix it. It's not the job of the SCOTUS to legislate. It's only their job to try and figure out what the nutjobs on capital hill really meant when they wrote certain laws.
What is your special knowledge and experience that makes you an expert on appellate law?
The voices in your head?
Actually, factual innocence must trump procedural bars. If not, there is no substantive due process and the action is not constitutional. At least for justices with half a brain or more.
And yes, I am a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court. Bet you aren't.
I must agree. I was so outraged at the way this story was presented that I read the opinion. Bad law, bad result for the defendant, but a correct judicial result. It's sad, but the system is one of rules, not results. They were not within their power to have ruled any other way. Sorry.
Sorry, but you're plain wrong and lacking in common decency just like those justices.
First, I didn't exaggerate: Scalia wrote "There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction
Secondly, they, like you, are ignoring the plain message of the Constitution by defaulting to this whole activist judges BS. Most clear-thinking and decent people would strongly believe that imprisoning an innocent person violates the Fourth Amendment (the ultimate seizure is of one's freedom), the Eighth Amendment (certainly you believe it's cruel and unusual to keep an innocent person in jail), and the Fourteenth Amendment.
So your problem is that you ignore superceding facts that don't fit with your opinion. Thankfully, six of the justices disagreed with Scalia and Thomas so this ridiculous concept isn't in precedent.
A Nut? I guess anyone who believes the founding fathers and the spirit of the constitution is a nut. Thats why liberals are now called progressives. They are progressing further from the original and the truth.
1) Actually I think that today the term "progressive" is in use because the of an extensive, coordinated slander campaign by the GOP to poison the term "liberal"---a campaign that succeeded because of the current Democratic politician's lack of spine to oppose it.
2) It's odd how the same people peddling "original intent" are often the same ones in favor of governmental power over individual rights. For example, the "imperial presidency" paradigm was certainly not intended by the founders---in fact it was feared by them and that was why they wanted the somewhat fractious and more broadly constituted Congress in charge. So backers of original intent seem to have everything *but* the original intent of the founders in mind.
Original intenters often bring out the maxim that "the government that governs least, governs best". However, this is only true if you mean that it governs as much as is necessary but no more since otherwise it would mean that no government is the best government (there probably aren't too many complete anarchists around). In 1789 the nation and the world were considerably different and the need for Federal management was much weaker. Today we are much more tightly connected: tainted spinach from California can kill children in any state, coal burned in the Midwest can acidify eastern lakes, terrorists boarding planes in Massachusetts can bring wreak mayhem in DC and New York, etc. The Federal government sometimes expands its scope into areas where it is not needed but also fails to intervene where it is needed. This imperfection is to be expected as it is in any human endeavor. Even the original founders would expect that their document would need to evolve to keep pace with a changing world.
That makes progressives to be nuts since they are the ones who believe in the founding fathers and the Constitution. The attitude of the reactionaries towards the Constitution is revealed in their support for Guantanamo, the destruction of habeus corpus, illegal spying, arresting people for wearing the "wrong" t-shirt, and numerous other examples of behavior that would incite Washington to lead another revolution.
And don't blame the legislators for preventing new evidence from being grounds for an appeal. That policy results from some of the most convoluted reasoning and misinterpretations by the Rehnquist court that has ever been foisted on a defenseless public. Remember it was the right wing that is responsible for saying that a person has only 180 days from the day they are hired instead of from when their paycheck is issued to claim discrimination, not the legislators. This type of contorted reasoning, always on the side of the power structure, is characteristic of the reactionary element of the Supreme Court.
Thomas doesn't get to place his belief above the precedent of the Court. Period. He's a terrible judge, and a blind ideologue. My Constituional Law professor was an avowed conservative, and even he admitted that Thomas is a joke. And, if you'd be so kind, please cite some proof that the Framers intended the Constitution to be read in 18th century terms. Thank you.
You do realize that a recent study found that Clarence Thomas is the most "activist" judge on the court.
Five old-fart male Catholic idealogue / theocrat mediocre-t
Well done Justice Thomas. Continue to stand strong on your faith and principles. This steadfastness is surely a thorn in the side of those who would try to quite a career and reputation that has stood the test of time because of its inherent strength. Every American should read "My Grandfather's Son." In many ways, Justice Thomas is the epitomy of the American dream. When will we, the American people, free Justice Thomas to be a role model for those who seek and aspire to be more than they are today...ou
You're thinking what 90% of the rest of what black Americans are thinking.
Oh BULLSHIT! Thomas is an individual too seriously flawed to be on any bench. There's more to a jurist than the color of his skin. How Thomas came to head any organization is beyond me but I'd guess he came along at just the right time to cash in on his color. He wouldn't make a pimple on Thurgood Marshall's butt! I guess if there can be self-hating jews, there can also be self-hating blacks.
Two nuts do not make a sundae.
I read the book, found it interesting but nothing to carry it into perpetuity; however, the problem with the Court is mentioned in the essay: the court is bending far too much to the Right, to the point that rationality is taking a backseat to fundamentalism and BushWackery. It is the case that we periodically need a change in both Congress and the Executive (a little Left and a little Right) to maintain the American ideals. But our Judicial Branch should to as large an extent as possible remain agnostic to political ideology. And I would disagree that the present situation in the Supreme Court has only existed some seven years; we are well beyond a decade of judicial deterioration. This is plainly evident in the mass of 5-4 decisions.
I THINK THAT YOU ARE REALLY KIDDING...
Ummm...it'
And the first sentence in question (the one with "quite" in it) still doesn't quite read...
Today on HuffPost, it seems like one or another conservative grassroots organization has given a call to arms to post on a site previously given to creative thinking, occasional bitching, and TRUTH, spun ever-so-lightly and served with a dollop of humor.
I'd say, welcome to the viewpoints of others, but it's hard to be heard over the pathetic bleating of Bushy sheep...
Are you simply reading from the inside cover of the book?
Those of us of African descent, are, or should be very embarrased that there are still ÜNCLE TOMS" as this clarence thomas and ÄUNT THJOMISINA" as condelzeela rice are still around. What is unfamthable is why anybody of African descent would claim republican? That party isn't the part that feed the slaves, not only that, many of us Africans and those Europeans who have faught all types of racism, fail to understand that even Lincoln, only freed the slaves to break the economy of the south. Those of us(Africans) in the Repungnant-can party of, a la Uncle Clarence Thomas, are dillusional, self hating wannabees. To further point out this Thomas'self-hatred, he, born in the segregated south, marries's a white woman. Why?
For these reasons. it is not surprising the Bush 41 desired this Moron on the Supreme Court, to further and enforce the racism and bigoty on these stolen shores. So don't be surprised at anything that a WILLIE LYNCH designed HOUSE NEGRO would do. Yes, he/she will and would do anything to all persons around the world and domesticaly for the white racist regime for acceptance; not realizing that they are being used, and abused for a nefarious potical reason.
"Those of us of African descent, are, or should be very embarrased that there are still ÜNCLE TOMS" as this clarence thomas and ÄUNT THJOMISINA" as condelzeela rice are still around."
Not I.
Personally, I'm tired of people telling me I should be "embarrassed" every time someone who shares the same skin color as me behaves a certain way. It makes no rational sense as I am in no way responsible for their actions any more than the average white person is responsible for the actions of Antonin Scalia, Timothy McVeigh, or Dick Cheney.
Had I personally appointed Thomas to his position, then I might feel some responsibility but as it stands I've never even met the man, much less enabled his efforts to judge over any cause whatsoever.
Moreover, in my opinion its his right to marry whomever he sees fit. To assume that it is "self-hating" for a black person to marry someone who is white is just as racist as those laws on the books that once said that blacks could not marry whites in this country. Maybe its a marriage of convenience, maybe its true love, maybe it is indeed "self-hate" as you claim. Ultimately, however, as he's the one who has to wake up to her every morning, I feel that's his business and his business alone.
Criticizing his voting record is fair -- and even essential -- but bashing the man because he chooses to marry a white woman or saying that he is an "embarrassment" to black people -- I can't relate to that. I feel it makes far more sense simply to judge the man based on his record and in doing so, not to try to apply his behavior to other black people.
As I see it, the same "black enough" test that many try to apply to Obama is just as senseless when applied to Thomas -- I don't expect everyone to agree with that, but that's just how I see it.
I agree!!To paraphrase Elvis Costello "Why can't a man or women stand alone". A government official should be judged on his or her decisions and outcomes nothing more. After reviewing Mr. Thomas' judicial statements I think we can all agree that Justice Thomas is standing "flat footed"
Based on your post I would say you were "displaced" from the 6th grade. This post is surely historic in it's ignorance. Congratulations!
You said: "What is unfamthmable (sic) is why anybody of African descent would claim republican?" I think you meant 'unfathoma
This is indeed the mystery of the era. Why any black, or for that matter, any minority, or woman, would claim to be a Republican or endorse their views is a total enigma to me.
Justice Thomas is a nut case I gather because He refused to stay on the plantation and take orders from his white liberal''m
Great Post!
Thanks....
Being called a nutcase by Scalia is like being called crazy by Charles Manson. Thomas is a fool who has bought into the nutball brand of "conservatism", which boils down to "hypocrisy" most of the time. For example, He wasn't too concerned about states rights when he was helping to appoint George Bush to the White House. He wasn't concerned with morals while he was trying to get laid, making comments about pubes on Coke cans. And no, sorry to disappoint but he doesn't "think for himself" either. This isn't about skin color.
You don't care much for logic do you?
The Bush v Gore decision was actually a preservation of states rights you nitwit. It was the protection of the voters in Florida who were being subjected to an attempt to re-write the election laws after the votes had been cast.
As for morals while trying to get laid. Please provide a shred of evidence other than Ms. Hill that he did or said any of that stuff. You have one disgruntled former employee who TEN YEARS later decides to come forward. I'm sure it had nothing to do with her views on abortion and her fear (and support from Planned Parenthood) that Thomas could be a part of the reversal of Roe v Wade.
Wake up children.
Thomas is not a fool, whatever else he might be. He is an ideologue much like Scalia is and is worthless to the bench for the same reason. He's a walking, talking contradiction, a mix of Uncle Tom, Ayn Rand and Jim Crow.
Thomas is only capable of building onto the thoughts of others---more attention should have been paid to his capacity for original thought, when appraising his qualification for the court.
...oh yea, STATES RIGHTS. What about the 2000 election when Florida's STATES RIGHTS were crushed by the Supreme Court when it intervened in the election recount and appointed the CHIMP?
I wonder how Clarence "I-got-mine-screw you" Thomas voted on that one? Hmmmmm?
It's not merely that 'he thinks for himself' - it's that he thinks like a heartless idiot. How this moron every passed a bar exam is a constant source of wonderment to me.
No, Thomas is a nut case because of many of his absurdist (mostly dissenting) opinions. For instance, in a dissent a few years ago, he had argued that nothing in the Constitution stands in the way of the states establishing their own religions, because in his twisted "understanding" of the Constitution only the federal government is prohibited from establishing a government endorsed religion. (See Elk Grove Unified School Dist. V. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004)). Not even Thomas’ sometime fellow bomb thrower Scalia was willing to swallow such pretzel logic.
Last night I watched the 60 Minutes interview with Justice Thomas by Steve Croft. An Afro American friend called and said he hadn;t changed his opinion of Clarence "one damn bit."Furth
I watched the 60 minutes interview last night. At the time of Judge Thomas Confirmation Hearings I really did not care. I was in my 20's. Last night I did. I like what the man stands for. My Catholic upbringing has had a important influence in my life as well. I am of Latino descent and agree with his opinion on not giving advantages based on your race. I to have been raised that if you work hard the payoffs will come. Sit on your a=s and beg, and you will go nowhere.
PURA VIDA
Terrific post! I too like what the man stands for. In the end, all you have to do is look at how he has voted, where he came from, what he stands for.
Everything else is... someone else's opinion...
Agreed. Just look at how he has voted. That is the only reason any thinking person needs to want to see this reactionary leave the bench.
How he has voted: See how Scalia voted. Also, how many decisions Thomas has written (go to it, trolls, there won't be many of you crowing after you check his actual record on the USSC);
Where he came from: A government job where he rose through the ranks not on ability but through government Affirmative Action programs, which he no longer supports now that he doesn't need them anymore; and
What he stands for: Read the few decisions he has written. He is like the dumb kid in class who has to look at his neighbor's test paper to come up with an answer. In this case, his neighbor is Antonin Scalia, whose reactionary, psycho, hypocrital ideas Thomas swallows and parrots without thought or question. Check it out, Thomas mutely concurs with Scalia in more than 9 out of 10 decisions.
VIDA, QUITATE LA BANDA DE TUS OJOS = TAKE OFF THE BLIND FROM YOUR EYES
Your words would ring a lot more true if Thomas hadn't gotten where he is today through the same programs that he now condemns.
Ironically enough, if affirmative action didn't exist, Thomas most likely wouldn't even be in the position to make judgments against it today.
You're right about working hard paying off, but here in America "hard work" does not always pay off -- some of the hardest working people we have in this country are out there picking lettuce in fields or flipping burgers at McDonald's while "Chip" down the street is cruising through life on his parent's trust fund.
In ten years time that guy picking lettuce might barely make enough to send his kids to a public university while Chip has already graduated from an elite Ivy league school and is on the fast track to becoming the CEO of his father's company just by virtue of being born in the right place at the right time.
That's just the reality of America. Ultimately, education is the key, but as our schools again begin to re-segregate themselves based on race, even that avenue is now in jeopardy for many blacks and latinos in our society.
(cont'd)
As people continually point out, this man dismisses a system that helped to put him in the position to attack said system.
"In 1968 Clarence Thomas responded to a minority recruitment program and enrolled in the College of the Holy Cross, a Catholic school in Worcester, Massachusetts. There he helped found the Black Student Union and graduated in 1971 with an A.B., cum laude in English. He then attended Yale Law School from which he received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree in 1974."
http://en.
If he were really true to the "non-racial" principles he espouses, he wouldn't have "responded" to a minority recruitment program, nor would have have founded a "Black" Student Union at college.
If the argument is that he now sees the "error" of his ways with regards to racial issues, that still in no way invalidates the fact that he both benefited from and actively contributed to such actions in the past.
Again, one can't use race on the one hand to get to a certain position in life and then later argue that race should not be an issue -- honesty and decency alone would force you to admit that others deserve the same opportunities as you had when you were younger that helped you to get where you are today.
Its like climbing up a ladder to reach a goal, and then kicking it away when it no longer serves your purpose -- regardless of who is climbing it after you; it is selfish, short-sighted, and ultimately, completely hypocritical.
Clarence Thomas is a rubber stamp that says: "If the Bushes want it, then I'm for it." Nothing more, nothing less.
I didn't like him during those hearings with Anita Hill and I still don't. Now, he'll be whining his way through these book promotion appearances--always like people should whip out the violins and feel sorry for him because he's had a few tough breaks. boo hoo!!
I'm currently reading John Dean's latest book, "Broken Government", and as a Washington lawyer and member of the Nixon administration, he has a lot to say about the Thomas fiasco and the Supreme Court confirmation process in general. Various Supreme Court nominees resorted to half truths, omissions, and in some cases outright lies to move successfully through the process.
The makeup of congress has included a disproportionate number of lawyers for several years; currently 1 out of every 3 members of congress has a law degree. Dean says that the average voter may view this statistic and discount it as an apparition. However, when lawyers are involved in processes such as nominating Supreme Court members, they have possible future career moves in mind. When members of Congress convert Congressional service into a future well paying legal career on K Street, they don't want to piss off a potential Supreme Court Member who could bring retribution down on their future law firm. Dean was appalled when he saw Democrat Senators, like Biden and Kennedy, stay silent while Right-Wingers destroyed Anita Hill who had several reliable witnesses to confirm every word of her testimony. Furthermore, evidence showing that Thomas was a regular customer of Washington area sexually oriented businesses was omitted from testimony; with organizations like the Federalist Society protecting their purveyors of Authoritarian philosophy, the legal system has officially become the largest Good-Old-Boys club of all !
Get Dean’s book and find out what a long time Republican supporter has to say about the disintegration of his party. This is the man who stood up to his party’s president and said, “Mr. President, I won’t lie for you !”. He confirmed my belief that the current Democrat leadership of Congress has squandered their opportunities since last January by trying to resurrect some ancient concept of civility in the age of corporate carnage. He commended Pelosi for her attempt to return to a better time, but mentioned that it took forty years to get here and it’s not going to change over night.
All lawyers are crooks, we know that; and now we learn 1/3 of elected Federal officials are crroks, too. We didn't really believe it was only 1/3, as we we believed it was closer to 100 percent.
Dear Tucanofulano: No, not all lawyers are crooks. The bad ones just stand out. Lawyers are all that stand between you, me, and tyranny.
"All lawyers are crooks[.]"
What a profoundly idiotic statement. Do your homework. Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln were lawyers, for starters. And just wait until you need one!
He voted against stopping the execution of children in this country. That to me says it all. How do you justify that in your mind?
Tell me something: if Harris and Clebold had survived the slaughter at Columbine, would you have found it horrific if they got the death penalty?
Look, after reaching 14 or 15 years old some people are as evil as they will be when they are 30 or 40. Serial killers are already prepped for their path. Some are already started on it.
If a person has reached the point where they are capable of committing slaughter, they are ready to be executed.
You don't preserve the life of a rabid puppy until its grown up do you?
yes, I would have.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
