Funnily enough, just after having written my post about your average liberal’s shaky grasp on cause and effect, I read the following two paragraphs in the New York Times‘ latest mean-spirited attack on Clarence Thomas:
In the last 100 Supreme Court arguments, Clarence Thomas has not uttered a word. Court watchers have suggested a variety of explanations. Among the least flattering: he is afraid that if he speaks he will reveal his ignorance about the case; he is so ideologically driven that he invariably comes with his mind made up; or he has contempt for the process.
In their provocative new book, “Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas,” two Washington Post journalists, Kevin Merida and Michael Fletcher, ponder Justice Thomas’s extraordinary silence, and many other puzzles. They offer a wealth of insight, but they have no answer to the central enigma he poses: why the justice who has faced the greatest hardships regularly rules for the powerful over the weak, and has a legal philosophy notable for its indifference to suffering.
If I were an intelligent, logical person, having read the above, I just might say to myself that Clarence Thomas has realized that the same system that might have given him an advantage over others, has also left him open to crude attacks claiming that he’s stupid, stupid, stupid.
In other words, Thomas might feel that a system doesn’t provide any real benefit to people if it gives them a leg up, only to hold that fact against them forever. He might think there’s more virtue to a system that prohibits schools and employers from slapping people down (that is, discriminating against them). In the latter kind of a system, people who succeed — as Thomas did — will be understood to have succeeded on their own merit. In the former system, the one the liberals insist Thomas perpetuate, you end up with programs that give large benefits to very small numbers of people, that give no benefits to most people, and that taint with the smell of failure and incompetence everyone they touch.
Filed under: African-Americans, Judges, Media matters
If it is true that man speaks from the depth of their depraved hearts; it is interesting that the MSM immediately associates silence with stupidity. What is exciting is that we have an active citizenry that isn’t buying what the MSM is peddling. Republicanism always rises up to crush arrogant elitism. The MSM deserves every bit of ridicule a republican voice can dish out. Go get ‘em, Bookworm.
Hello Bookworm,
Boy howdy, the assertions made by these article is just absurd. People are making leaps toward wild conclusions based on little or no facts at all…
It’s becoming more and more common to see people being hanged on the gallows on no substantial evidence. This article reminds me of Sir Thomas Moore, who said that his silence does not speak to his opinions one way or the other. Silence is not guilt, for if we lay the laws of men low, what will stand between us and the devil once they’re hewn? Will we be able to stand in the winds that blow then?
Men unjustly construe silence as guilt nowadays and project all forms evil on that silence. Clarence Thomas does not speak, thus, he is “indifferent to suffering”? This madness is sweeping much of our discussions on the law.
Does the rule of law still exist? If so, how much of it is left? Can it be rebuilt?
The maxim, courtesy of More, is that silence implies consent.
[...] [Discuss this article with Bookworm over at the Bookworm Room…] Share Article Clarence Thomas, Washington Post Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL [...]
I guest that Justice Thomas appreciates that one can’t listen while they’re talking. I can understand why Liberals struggle with that maxim.
Ah, I love that subtle quote from Grisham’s novel The Rainmaker. Nicely done.
Thomas’ written opinions tend to run long, and use lots of big words and stuff. I can’t help but notice Scalia’s opinions, the most biting and spicey ones being the dissenting ones, are on the short, snippy side of things.
If Thomas is really just a clone of Scalia, he must be a very stupid one indeed. The man wastes an awful lot of time writing about complicated things, in sophisticated, well-structured ways, which I guess none of our liberal elites take the time to read. So assuming he’s as weak of a thinker as I’m constantly told he must be, he’s in need of some time management classes as well.
Ah well, it’s the thundering din of “what all our liberals ‘know’.” No way that could be wrong, huh?
Chief Justice Roberts at one point said in his confirmation hearings that he would follow the law in his rulings and if that meant that the powerful won, the powerful would win. I don’t remember his exact words, but I was greatly relieved by this statement, since it signified that he was no pushover for liberal bilge and I would put Justice Thomas in that catagory.
There is a constant behavior pattern in the MSM’s treatment of Justice Thomas. Any conservative, or anyone seen as conservative who rises to high position is labeled stupid.
Bush’s intelligence is repeatedly compared to that of a fence post. One interpretation of this multi-culti-fruitcake media behavior (love the phrase, BW)is that they are afraid of intelligent conservatives in power.But that is again stating the obvious.
Maybe that would give Justice Thomas some satisfaction.
Al
Justice Thomas is slow. He isn’t the intellectual powerhouse that Scalia is. It is just a fact. But there is a difference between a fact and the media using it as a tool for character assassination.
Thomas is working very hard to figure out the issues. He isn’t sharp, so he has to replace it with hard work. Which means not opening his mouth like a bunch of fake liberals, and talking up a storm while paying zero attention to the witnesses and lawyers. You’ve seen fake liberal Congressmen do exactly that, people, in investigations. A soap box, they called it.
The New York Times should get whipped in public, it is the only thing that will teach them a lesson. And that’s a moderate and lenient punishment in my book.