‘no mention of Ginni’

Campaign To Destroy SCOTUS Getting Increasingly Stupid

David Harsanyi, Federalist

 

Giving Clarence Thomas His Due
Loury & McWhorter, Substack




The vilification of Clarence Thomas needs to stop. Actually, I’ll go further than that. Clarence Thomas deserves permanent public... Read More

The vilification of Clarence Thomas needs to stop. Actually, I’ll go further than that. Clarence Thomas deserves permanent public recognition for his achievements and service to the country. Schools should be named after him. Whatever his past sins, he has served on the Supreme Court for three decades. He has risen from nothing to become one of the most powerful and influential public officials in the country. Yes, he is a conservative, and his views are unpopular in some quarters. But that should not blind us to the magnitude of his accomplishments.

There is no reason that a school or library or public park shouldn’t bear the name of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Whatever you think of her opinions and ideological orientation, she was a significant figure on the Supreme Court, and so she is a significant historical figure. That’s undeniable. Equally undeniable is the significance and influence of Clarence Thomas. As John notes in the following excerpt from our most recent conversation, Thomas’s career before he ascended to the Court may not have merited a special place of honor. But he is now arguably the most influential justice currently serving. He may not have originated any school of legal thinking, but his opinions will remain consequential for decades after he retires.

Imagine an anti-Thomas, a black Supreme Court justice who shared Clarence Thomas’s background and history but occupied the far left wing of the Court and wasn’t shy about it. I somehow doubt that the notion of naming a school or any other public facility after him would make anybody bat an eye. It may well be that it’s simply too early to start thinking about how Thomas will be remembered—he’s still a sitting justice, and he shows no sign of slowing down. But it’s never too early to start planning. Perhaps those of us who see Thomas for the extraordinary black American that he is ought to start thinking about making Clarence Thomas High School a reality. . . . .

 

Then the conservatives on the bench need to get smarter and stop violating ethics rules.

 

Look at how the libs freak out when blacks don't bend the knee.

 

Dems are merely having a tantrum because they were outworked, outstrategized and outmaneuvered.

 

What does that dubious claim have to do with Clarence's numerous violations of ethics? Nothing. But your deflection is noted.

 

The only reason Dems are assaulting Thomas is because they lost.

 

Pathetic, Jack

 

We disagree. Dems were soundly beaten regarding the SCOTUS, in part by decades of patient Repub work and in part (at the end) by McConnell's tactical brilliance. Now they're trying whatever they can to play catch-up. We saw it first in the scurrilous campaign against Kavanaugh, and now in the fanciful accusations against Thomas. If Dems had a SCOTUS majority there would be no allegations against Thomas.

 

A conniving, treacherous abuse of power is a million miles from tactical brilliance.

 

The fly rarely has a good word for the swatter.

 

That's your full analysis of all that is in play with respect to the SC? A battle between two political parties with one side having "won"? What did they win exactly? The authority to allow individual states to force women to carry to term and then abandon any care for the child's growth after it is born? That's a win in your book? A win for conservatism?

 

Actually, it's a win for the Constitution. Abortion was always really a state matter, the Roe aberration notwithstanding. Passing authority back to the states is a win for us all.

 

A win for the Constitution, eh? So, your first pass analysis was that all of the hoopla was just sour grapes over "losing" versus "winning" and your second pass answer is it's a "win"
for the "Constitution". Abortion is not a matter for anyone in the government - it is a private decision between a woman and her values, her situation in life, and most importantly her health. By what measure of conservatism does the government have a role in this?

 

I'm uninterested in prescribing what is and is not conservatism.
The crux of the abortion debate is whether it involves one life (the woman) or two (the unborn child). And so, again, deciding what is appropriate is a matter for the people to decide via their legislatures.

 

Ah pardon me then your excellency for stepping outside of your interests....

 

Have a pleasant evening Jack

 

And you as well. I never spend time prescribing what is and is not consistent with any label.

 

Incorrect. This little conversation here is based on you prescribing that this entire thread is only a matter of winning and losing between the two major political parties in power in the US.

 

Arbitrarily, you run away from a discussion of what is and isn't conservatism.

 

In this instance, you have epitomized the common and not at all especially difficult observation that Republicans have no compass left, no position, nothing but winning without even so much as being able to define what winning is.....

 

That is false. My view of Democrats' motives has nothing to do with prescribing anything.

 

Republicans have won on the SCOTUS.

 

That's at least partly because I don't care in the slightest how conservatism is defined.

 

I'm goin to bed, because tomorrow, I have to be at work to earn my cut of your pay, but by all means, keep up with your justifications for your losing responses to my points.