Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

oswaldactedalone

(3,489 posts)
1. Agree
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:36 PM
Jun 2016

What a hypocritical and mean-spirited move by Bush 1 in appointing an incompetent clown to the "black seat" on the SC.

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
4. The first two choices were turned down. Thomas was allowed after first two the Democratic Party
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:54 PM
Jun 2016

Said no. So bush had a last attempt. If the senate said no to Thomas there's no telling who we'd have. Bork and some other guy were told no.

ISUGRADIA

(2,571 posts)
9. Bork was nominated by Reagan
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:25 PM
Jun 2016

Thomas was chosen to be Thurgood Marshall's replacement. There were no other nominees before him.

 

Cooley Hurd

(26,877 posts)
10. Bork was Reagan's nominee:
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:31 PM
Jun 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

Robert Heron Bork (March 1, 1927 – December 19, 2012) was an American legal scholar who advocated the judicial philosophy of originalism. Bork served as a Yale Law School professor, Solicitor General, Acting Attorney General, and a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[1]

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court, but the Senate rejected his nomination.

</snip>


Here's the skinny on the Thomas nomination:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination#Nomination

Nomination
Justice William Brennan stepped down from the Supreme Court in 1990. Thomas was one of five candidates on Bush's shortlist and was the one that Bush was most interested in nominating. Bush's staff made four arguments against nominating Thomas at the time: Thomas had only served eight months as a judge at the time; his appointment would result in two African-Americans on the Court at one time; Bush could expect to replace Thurgood Marshall with Thomas in due time; and multiple senior advisors told Bush that they did not feel that Thomas was ready.[4][5][6] Bush eventually decided to nominate Judge David Souter of the First Circuit instead, who was easily confirmed.[7]

White House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu promised that Bush would fill the next Supreme Court vacancy with a "true conservative" and predicted a "knock-down, drag-out, bloody-knuckles, grass-roots fight" over confirmation.[8][9] On July 1, 1991, President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to replace Marshall, who had recently announced his retirement.[10] By then, Thomas had been a federal judge for 16 months.[11] He had not previously argued before the Court, though that has not been a traditional requirement.[12]

Marshall had been the first African American Justice on the Court, and while the appointment of Thomas would preserve the existing racial composition of the Court, it was seen as likely to move its ideological balance to the right. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh had previously warned Bush that replacing Thurgood Marshall, who was widely revered as a civil rights icon, with any candidate who was not perceived to share Marshall's views would make the confirmation process difficult.[13] Civil rights and feminist organizations opposed Thomas' appointment, partially citing Thomas's criticism of affirmative action and also because they were suspicious that Thomas might not be a supporter of Roe v. Wade.

In the second half of the 20th century, Supreme Court nominees were customarily evaluated by a committee of the American Bar Association (ABA) before being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee.[14] Anticipating that the ABA would rate Thomas poorly, the White House and Republican Senators pressured the ABA for at least the mid-level "qualified" rating, and simultaneously attempted to discredit the ABA as partisan.[nb 1][15] Ultimately, on a scale of well-qualified, qualified, or unqualified, 12 members of the Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary voted that he was "qualified", one abstained, and the other two voted "not qualified", for an overall vote of qualified. This vote represented one of the lowest levels of support for Supreme Court nominees.[16][17][18][19][20][21] Although the ABA vote was viewed as a "significant embarrassment to the Bush administration",[13] it ultimately had little impact on Thomas' nomination.[15]

Some of the public statements of Thomas's opponents foreshadowed the confirmation fight that would occur. One such statement came from African-American activist attorney Florynce Kennedy at a July 1991 conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Referring to the failure of Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork, she said of Thomas, "We're going to 'bork' him."[22] The liberal campaign to defeat the Bork nomination served as a model for liberal interest groups opposing Thomas.[23] Likewise, in view of what had happened to Bork, Thomas's confirmation hearings were also approached as a political campaign by the White House and Senate Republicans.[24]

</snip>


elleng

(130,156 posts)
2. What exactly is the 'proof' to which you refer?
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:46 PM
Jun 2016

Are you aware of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the matters at issue?

'In dissent, Justice Thomas said the majority opinion “reimagines the undue-burden standard,” creating a “benefits-and-burdens balancing test.” He said courts should resolve conflicting positions by deferring to legislatures.

“Today’s opinion,” Justice Thomas wrote, “does resemble Casey in one respect: After disregarding significant aspects of the court’s prior jurisprudence, the majority applies the undue-burden standard in a way that will surely mystify lower courts for years to come."

My point is that it's easy to slam Supreme Court justices, and in fact any judge, from the outside. To do so usefully, however requires, in my opinion, more than off-hand slams, but rather full understandings of the matters and decisions at issue.

dubyadiprecession

(5,620 posts)
3. Thomas believes the New Deal was unconstitutional....
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 08:49 PM
Jun 2016

and on that point, scalia once said, "i'm pretty conservative, but i'm not that crazy".

democrattotheend

(11,605 posts)
6. Thomas' appointment breaks my heart
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:18 PM
Jun 2016

In 1991, after trying to hang on for a Democratic president to appoint his successor, Thurgood Marshall stepped down because he was in ill health and was replaced by Clarence Thomas. The truly heartbreaking part is that Marshall lived until 2 days before Clinton's inauguration. In other words, he likely would have lived long enough to be replaced by someone worthy of his seat instead of Clarence Thomas.

postatomic

(1,771 posts)
7. I had to read his recent dissent twice
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:19 PM
Jun 2016

Just to make sure he was being judicial and I couldn't see it.

But after reading what he said about "throwing plates" and "slamming doors" I found myself waiting for the pubic hair on the soda can.

RAFisher

(466 posts)
8. I disagree with his philosophy but no way he's close the worst
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:25 PM
Jun 2016

Justice James McReynolds was an all around asshole. Racist, anti-semitic, and everyone else on the court hated him. Read about him, It's absolutely crazy. He would randomly just take off to go duck hunting, completely neglecting his job. Then come back with an incoherent one sentence dissent.

I don't seen how Thomas even compares to Justice McReynolds.

SaschaHM

(2,897 posts)
11. I dislike Thomas (for Anita Hill et al)....
Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:35 PM
Jun 2016

and I disagree with pretty much everything he says, but "least qualified" hits my ear wrong. I don't believe that discounts the extensive resume that he had before being nominated to the court. I don't doubt his qualifications. I question his judgment and reasoning.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Proof that Thomas should ...